Further to today's call suggested non-subjective  wording for the proposed second paragraph

Policy Guidance should advise the IGOs and INGOs in the first instance to contact the registrars of record for any domains involved in the harms they are seeking address since registrars have an obligation under their agreement with ICANN to deal with such harms at no cost and in a timely manner for both infringing and non infringing domains.



On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote:
In section 2.1.1 under Recommendation #3 under paragraph 2 (page 16 of 91) please can we add an additional explanatory paragraph?

This recommendation originated in the Working Group’s initial preliminary recommendation (published in its Initial Report) concerning an IGO’s standing to file a UDRP or URS complaint based on compliance with the communications and notification procedure under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention. In that preliminary recommendation, the Working Group had made a distinction between the procedural matter of standing and the further need for a complainant to prove that it has also satisfied the substantive elements required by the UDRP and URS. The Working Group had therefore recommended that a Policy Guidance document be prepared and issued by ICANN to clarify the applicability of Article 6ter as well as the other procedural options available to IGOs. In light of the Working Group’s subsequent decision to modify its original recommendation concerning Article 6ter, its recommendation for Policy Guidance has also been amended to refer specifically to the procedural filing options available under the current UDRP and URS.

Policy Guidance should advise the IGOs and INGOs in the first instance to contact the registrars of record for any domains involved in the harms they are seeking address. The overwhelming majority of registrars are willing to deal with such behaviour at no cost and in a timely manner for both infringing and non infringing domains. In the unlikely event a registrar would not wish to help ICANN has contractual provisions in place to investigate the reasons for such a decision.

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 12:10 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:

Dear Working Group members,

 

Staff has posted copies, in both Word and PDF formats, and in both redlined and clean versions, of the updated Draft Final Report for your review on the Working Group wiki space: https://community.icann.org/x/UoVHBQ. You will also find links to the most recent GAC Communique (from ICAN62 in Panama last week), that includes advice to the ICANN Board concerning our PDP, as well as the GNSO Council’s resolution also from Panama, requesting that we complete our Final Report by 9 July 2018 (the document deadline for the Council’s July meeting). We have done our best to capture what we believe to be the most current and agreed text, especially of the specific recommendations and consensus levels, but remain ready to make further updates and corrections as may be needed.

 

Please note the following:

  • Please limit your suggestions for edits and corrections to substantive matters (e.g. errors of substance) rather than formatting, typos, preferred word usages/phrasing, or grammar (unless there are egregious errors). This will allow us to complete our work as expeditiously as possible, as seems to be expected by the GNSO Council.
  • Please do not send back redlines of the document, as it can be difficult to track and capture multiple versions. Instead, please send your comments via email to this mailing list so that staff can make sure all substantive comments are noted and addressed.
  • The redline was done against the last version of the draft that was circulated (i.e. the 11 May document). The redlined changes that you see are therefore either new additions, corrections or modifications of the text from 11 May, for which members had been asked to submit comments by 22 May. Please therefore do not suggest further edits to the non-redlined text unless you see egregious errors that were not previously spotted (especially as much of the 11 May 2018 text was retained from the January 2017 Initial Report).
  • We have added a few comment boxes to indicate where and why certain insertions/changes were made (especially as regards rationale and specific suggestions made either to the 11 May document or on the recent Working Group calls).
  • We have also updated the GAC advice to include the GAC’s most recent Communique, issued last week in Panama City.
  • We have not included references to the recent and ongoing appeal filed by George under Section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, as that process has so far proceeded separately from the Working Group’s final deliberations – but please let us know if this should be added.

 

Process for filing Minority Statements:

  • As minority statements are not reviewed or edited by the Working Group or staff, they can be sent in any time. For purposes of meeting the Council’s requested deadline, however, it will be helpful if you can send to staff any minority statement that you may wish to file in Word format by 1200 UTC on Monday 9 July.

 

Our understanding is that Petter would like to discuss, and hopefully attain agreement on, any substantive errors or omissions in the report at our meeting this Thursday, 5 July. As such, please be sure to review the redlined changes before the call if you can. We apologize for the short notice, as the ICANN62 meeting last week made it impossible for us to complete the draft before today. (NOTE: If you wish to focus on the major substantive issues, you may wish to begin your review with Section 1.2 (pages 3-7 of the redlined Word version) and a portion of Section 2.1.1 (pages 10- 22 of the redlined Word version).)

 

 

Thank you.

 

Best regards,

Mary & Steve

 

 


_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp