I think these proposed edits, especially the first few, offer some interesting and insightful possibilities.

Best,

Kathy

From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 9:52 AM
To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda and documents for WG call today

Dear WG members,

For the WG call today, the co-chairs would like to continue (and make further progress toward finalizing) the WG’s discussion on the so-called “standing” requirement, i.e. the legal basis (such as would, for instance, be substantively equivalent to a registered trademark) upon which an IGO may file a complaint, whether it be under an amended form of the UDRP/URS or in a separate proceeding. Since we looked at an early draft text for a separate alternative procedure in previous calls, they would like the WG to discuss the document that was sent out last week (on 14 January), as a “thought exercise” on what an amended UDRP might look like (understanding that neither text is intended to limit the WG’s deliberations as to its course of action or ultimate recommendations).

As such, the proposed agenda for the call today is:

1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI
2. Discuss IGO small group response relating only to Article 6ter and standing (to ensure the WG agrees on and understand the protections conferred by 6ter versus a national TM registration)
3. Discuss draft “alternative” UDRP (solely in relation to the standing requirement)
4. Next steps/next meeting

The document for Agenda Item #3 is re-attached for your convenience; the IGO “small group” response was sent to the WG on Monday 19 January.

Thanks and cheers

Mary

Mary Wong

Senior Policy Director

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)

Telephone: +1 603 574 4892

Email: mary.wong@icann.org