Hi folks, I was able to save the raw scribe text of the first session (edited to only include the material related to IGO Curative Rights), and it's below. (the first "UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER" below is Brian Beckham of WIPO) The slides they refer to weren't posted on the ICANN website, yet. Ultimately, IGOs want it their way, i.e. any deviation from GAC advice appears unacceptable to them, despite our working group bending over backwards to find solutions (e.g. identifying the solution to use an assignee, licensee or agent, to shield the IGO) that fairly balance the rights of registrants and IGOs. The IGOs continue to overstate the nature of their actual immunity (when doesn't apply when they're initiating a dispute). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ ----- start of relevant portion of the scribe feed ----------- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you, Chair, Manal, and Nigel, wanted to afirm we have been making good progress with ICANN staff and appreciate the concert resources they have been devoting, we've been able to roll up our sleeves and reach out to IGO no, sir the full name protection issue. Manal gave a very good overview earlier and I would commend to you if there is specific trillion or -- interest or details, the briefing papers, item 2.2 in your briefing materials, the only thing I would add by way of background to the prior intuks introduction, the current effort for providing a level of protection for IGOs in the new gTLD and the [indiscernible] stems from the details -- it was recognized that the process for introducing new gTLD, in particular rights in the names and acronyms of IGOs so this is a long-standing matter of GAC interest and advice. To briefly dovetail on the idea of the list of the full names, and Manal mentioned earlier that the acronym res temporarily protected by virtue of a board resolution and the log jam has been a working group under the auspices of the GNSO which came out with dbl does not reflect the IGO's unique status as international both sides established up the law nor does it reflect the global public interest. On page four of the briefing materials there's a list of proposed GAC actions for this meeting and on page 12 there is a very useful list of briefing information that has been provided by IGOs throughout the course of this policy making process. So we are here this week to answer questions, to work with GAC leadership, with council leadership and there's a little bit of a chicken and e, e, g, g, regard -- we stand ready to assist and thank you fuel your support MANAL ISMAIL, GAC CHAIR: Thank you, Brian, and for the transcript, the previous speaker was Brian from WIPO. So moving on to the other part of our discussion, or our update, it's the IGO access to curative rights protection mechanism and starting with the latest developments on 17th July [reading] [refer to slide]. So going onto the following slide, as I mentioned earlier, this afternoon, we had the very constructive dialogue with the GNSO inter-sessionally between Barcelona and here. We had leadership call and we had another call with a few members from the GNSO and the GAC specifically on this topic. They have not taken a decision yet. They are engaging with us constructively and to take an informed decision. So the options, they currently have on the table, they have four -- [reading] [refer to slide]. So those are the four option they are currently looking at and for the sake of our meeting with the GNSO on -- okay, it's tomorrow. They have asked concrete questions to the GAC that we need to think of and engage tomorrow with the GNSO and weigh in our views so that they can take an informed decision. So questions are would interested parties among GAC members be willing and available to participate? Of course should they -- excluding the first option which is approve the final report, if we exclude this option and go to one of the other three, would interested GAC parties be willing and available to participate? Does the GAC have views on the efficiency of the recent experiences in in the EPDP -- does the GAC see the rpm PDP as a potentially suitable venue, [refer to slide]. So I am putting up those questions now for everyone to sleep over and to think about GAC views on this so that we can have a fruitful and interactive discussion with the GNSO tomorrow. As I said, they have been very constructive and very willing to hear from the GAC and they need just any signal that we are interested to engage in this. Do we have any more slides? I'm sorry. Yeah. So proposal for GAC action. [reading] so it's tomorrow at quarter past 3:00, [reading] so as I said, the main intention of this part is to bring to your attention the status quo within the GNSO and the questions to the GAC so that we are well prepared for an interactive and constructive dialogue tomorrow with the GNSO.. Brian, yes, please? WIPO. BRIAN BECKHAM: From WIPO for the record. To follow up on questions from the prior slide on page 13 of the briefing materials, the first melt there is an issue report from -- bullet. Related to that on page 12 in the middle is an IGO small group proposal. Mainly what this proposal sought to do is reflect using the existing uniform domain name policy design for trademark owners to provide a similar curative rights protection mechanism for IGOs that reflected their status under international law, namely having certain privileges and immunities from national courts and I think one of the core questions for the GAC is for the council to think about is we have in 2007 and in 2016 a proposed solution for this issue, those proposed solutions were put before the working group that produced recommendations which go against GAC advice. And if I may be frank, our perception is that the council is choose to go rather white wash the reality of what happened in that working group which produced recommendations which go squarely against GAC advice. This is obviously a bigger question for the PDP process for the multi stakeholder model but we believe it's important that that part of the process that led to the result that is in front of us is on the record. Thank you. MANAL ISMAIL, GAC CHAIR: Thank you very much, Switzerland. JORGE CANCIO: Thank you, Manal. Jorge Cancio, Switzerland for the record. I guess -- and this is the opportunity we have to prepare this question. Because quickly looked at the agenda for tomorrow and I haven't seen whether we have preparation of the GNSO meeting. Okay. So I think we need to go into substance and really while I fully understand and support what Brian just mentioned, that is no surprise, we have been supporting the IGO position very consistently these last years -- I think we also have to go cognizant of what is the position of the GNSO council. And there could be an option that the GNSO council took a more substantial look into the report from the curative protections PDP working group, but they are not going to do that because they understand their rules has to be purely procedural, and as I understood the position from the GNSO council during the call we had where I was invited to participate, they very bluntly have two options. Either they go on with the PDP working group recommendations, look only at the procedure, turn a bit of a blind ion what is the substance, or they -- eye, on, or they re, come manned, the work restarted in some fashion, be it in the same working group or a different PDP working group, in this case the rights protection mechanisms PDP, which is a very big thing which has many other topics to deal with. So if we take this situation as more or less fixed, that the GNSO only has those two avenues of action, I think that we don't want the GNSO council to take a decision which is inconsistent with GAC advice. So we should advise against option one, which is approve the final report. And then we should I think advise that they restart the work. But this restart should be uncertain conditions. And I think the questions from the GNSO council go in that direction. Okay, what could be the conditions under which the GAC and the IGOs would participate in such a restarted PDP working group. And I don't think it has to fully restart but probably it should return to the moment after they release the initial report or just before they release the initial report. And the conditions I think we should take benefit from the experience of other discussions. I don't know the discussions so well or how it is going in the EPDP but for instance in the case of the Red Cross, we had a similar problem but there the council already had decided over a final report and we had turn that back with facilitated discussion with Bruce at the time, very lengthy process because the GNSO council had already adopt ad final report, so I think we I want to avoted that but we can learn from that experience -- avoid -- that in the Red Cross restarted PDP working group, what happened actually is that there were seven or eight members from the GNSO and one or two people from the GAC, including our colleague from the Red Cross, did he -- Stephen Hank continues, and the rest of the members tried to understand what are the needs, interests and also the rights of the Red Cross under international law and public policy and that allowed to us reach a compromise. So to sum up, a fair say, a fair voice, that would really help us to be at least for myself, amen to believe getting to that option. Thank you MANAL ISMAIL, GAC CHAIR: Thank you, very much, Jorge and thank you for the food for thought for everyone until tomorrow. We need to move on to dot Amazon. Do you have a quick intervention, Kavouss Arasteh? >> KAVOUSS ARASTEH: Yes, a quick intervention that we need to understand each other's process and procedures. We have GAC advice and they have PDP. And each of us following our own ways. I think the most appropriate way at this stage to requesting or asking or urging not to go to vote to approve those and leave the room for further dialogue. I'm sure that we would reach some sort of understanding with dialogue in time. But asking them not to vote, take the motion from the vote for the time being and allow this should be a new PDP, whether EPDP, that is something we have to discuss but have to understand each other's positions thank you. MANAL ISMAIL, GAC CHAIR: Thank you, Kavouss, and I think this is the type of discussion we need to make with the GNSO tomorrow. So. GHISLAIN DE SALINS: , Frank's continues supporting the work of the IGOs and the work of Brian, especially from WIPO. I agree that we should definitely not go with option one and advice -- ideally go with option 2, the other options being less ideal for GAC but tomorrow we will -- our meeting with the GNSO will be a good place to discuss all of this. I know we're a bit late already, so I will stop here and we can discuss it further tomorrow in the meeting with our GNSO. Thank you. ---- end of relevant portion of the scribe feed ------------- On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:04 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
I went through the posted schedule for ICANN64:
https://64.schedule.icann.org/ https://64.schedule.icann.org/meetings?classes[]=Groups%3A%3AMeetings%3A%3AMeeting
to see if there might be sessions that relate to the IGO PDP, and here's what I found that might be of interest to monitor, to ensure that the Consensus Recommendations that we achieved as a working group are respected:
1. Japan local time, Saturday March 9, 15:15-16:45 (Toronto time: Saturday, 1:15 am) GAC meeting, IGO topic is on the agenda.
https://64.schedule.icann.org/meetings/961947
2. Japan local time, Sunday, March 10, 15:15-16:15 (Toronto time: Sunday March 10, 1:15 am) GAC meeting with the GNSO, IGO topic is on the agenda)
https://64.schedule.icann.org/meetings/961954
There's Adobe Connect capability for both sessions.
If there are other sessions that might be of interest, please share. To my knowledge, there's no scheduled vote by GNSO Council on the IGO PDP final report's consensus recommendations during ICANN64.
By the way, there's a time change in Canada/USA this weekend, so folks might want to be extra-careful when converting between time zones for events at ICANN64 (I used https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html for the conversions to Toronto time).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/