FOR REVIEW: Updated Draft Final Report
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
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 6*ter* 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 6*ter* 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 6*ter*, 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
In section 2.1.1 under Recommendation #5 (pages 17 – 21) please can we consider making the following changes? *Option #1 text *This option was suggested to mirror align with the situation where an IGO, instead of filing a UDRP or URS complaint, chooses to file a lawsuit in court. In such an event, the IGO will not be entitled to any jurisdictional immunity (having elected to initiate the proceedings) and the court will proceed to decide the case on its merits. Similarly, where an IGO chooses to defend its immunity claim against a registrant in court and succeeds, the legal proceedings should be conducted as if the UDRP or URS determination was never made. *Option #3 text* This option was suggested in an attempt to balance the group’s agreement that, for all six options, any additional outcomes should be permitted only after an IGO has successfully claimed immunity in court with GAC advice for appeals to be handled by an arbitral tribunal rather than via judicial proceedings. This is very misleading option #3 existed prior to #2, #4, #5, #6 *Option #6 text *This option was suggested following a review of the mandatory mediation step that is included in Nominet’s DRP for the .uk domain, and includes the ability to introduce an arbitration component (if the registrant also has the ability to choose this option) as well as aspects of Option 1. This option was suggested following a review of the mandatory mediation step that is included in Nominet’s DRP for the .uk domain, and includes the ability to introduce an arbitration component (which the registrant is free to choose as an alternative to judicial proceedings) as well as aspects of Option 1. 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 6*ter* 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 6*ter* 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 6*ter*, 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
I wouldn't support removal of that last line of Option #1's explanation. That's an important line. If anything, we should be expanding the explanatory text, not reducing it. [changing 'mirror' to 'align' is fine] That's a point I made (#17) in my earlier comments: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001349.html Given the compressed timeline [well, not really a 'given', since we're arguing about it!], rather than expanding each of them further, the better option might be to leave expanded text to the minority reports, as I noted in comment #17. By the way, none of the HTML formatting appears properly in the web archive: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001357.html When suggesting changes, it's best to keep that in mind, so that there's a proper historical record on the mailing list. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote:
In section 2.1.1 under Recommendation #5 (pages 17 – 21) please can we consider making the following changes?
Option #1 text
This option was suggested to mirror align with the situation where an IGO, instead of filing a UDRP or URS complaint, chooses to file a lawsuit in court. In such an event, the IGO will not be entitled to any jurisdictional immunity (having elected to initiate the proceedings) and the court will proceed to decide the case on its merits. Similarly, where an IGO chooses to defend its immunity claim against a registrant in court and succeeds, the legal proceedings should be conducted as if the UDRP or URS determination was never made.
Option #3 text
This option was suggested in an attempt to balance the group’s agreement that, for all six options, any additional outcomes should be permitted only after an IGO has successfully claimed immunity in court with GAC advice for appeals to be handled by an arbitral tribunal rather than via judicial proceedings.
This is very misleading option #3 existed prior to #2, #4, #5, #6
Option #6 text
This option was suggested following a review of the mandatory mediation step that is included in Nominet’s DRP for the .uk domain, and includes the ability to introduce an arbitration component (if the registrant also has the ability to choose this option) as well as aspects of Option 1.
This option was suggested following a review of the mandatory mediation step that is included in Nominet’s DRP for the .uk domain, and includes the ability to introduce an arbitration component (which the registrant is free to choose as an alternative to judicial proceedings) as well as aspects of Option 1.
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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Thanks George for the reminder about the lack of html formatting on the mailing lists - Its like something out the ark from the early days of the internet. On option #1 text - "Similarly, where an IGO chooses to defend its immunity claim against a registrant in court and succeeds, the legal proceedings should be conducted as if the UDRP or URS determination was never made." I know what you are try to convey but ICANN has no control over any legal proceedings so the text can not stand as is. Decisional sequencing is involved, what we need to concentrate on is a dismissal on lack of personal jurisdiction prior to a decision on the merits. This too important to be in a minority opinion. On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 2:20 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
I wouldn't support removal of that last line of Option #1's explanation. That's an important line. If anything, we should be expanding the explanatory text, not reducing it. [changing 'mirror' to 'align' is fine] That's a point I made (#17) in my earlier comments:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001349.html
Given the compressed timeline [well, not really a 'given', since we're arguing about it!], rather than expanding each of them further, the better option might be to leave expanded text to the minority reports, as I noted in comment #17.
By the way, none of the HTML formatting appears properly in the web archive:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001357.html
When suggesting changes, it's best to keep that in mind, so that there's a proper historical record on the mailing list.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
In section 2.1.1 under Recommendation #5 (pages 17 – 21) please can we consider making the following changes?
Option #1 text
This option was suggested to mirror align with the situation where an IGO, instead of filing a UDRP or URS complaint, chooses to file a lawsuit in court. In such an event, the IGO will not be entitled to any jurisdictional immunity (having elected to initiate the proceedings) and the court will proceed to decide the case on its merits. Similarly, where an IGO chooses to defend its immunity claim against a registrant in court and succeeds, the legal proceedings should be conducted as if the UDRP or URS determination was never made.
Option #3 text
This option was suggested in an attempt to balance the group’s agreement that, for all six options, any additional outcomes should be permitted only after an IGO has successfully claimed immunity in court with GAC advice for appeals to be handled by an arbitral tribunal rather than via judicial proceedings.
This is very misleading option #3 existed prior to #2, #4, #5, #6
Option #6 text
This option was suggested following a review of the mandatory mediation step that is included in Nominet’s DRP for the .uk domain, and includes the ability to introduce an arbitration component (if the registrant also has the ability to choose this option) as well as aspects of Option 1.
This option was suggested following a review of the mandatory mediation step that is included in Nominet’s DRP for the .uk domain, and includes the ability to introduce an arbitration component (which the registrant is free to choose as an alternative to judicial proceedings) as well as aspects of Option 1.
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
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote: 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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
I don’t understand the proposed language. If an IGO succeeds in asserting an immunity defense there will be no legal proceedings because the case will be dismissed. The basic rule for judicial “appeals” of UDRP decisions is that they are de novo proceedings with no reference on the merits to the preceding UDRP; they are not determined per the UDRP factors but under the statute law of the jurisdiction regarding trademark infringement. Reference to the preceding UDRP case would arise where an immunity defense is raised on the question of whether the IGO waived immunity by filing a UDRP, but if the defense is not successful the proceeding will proceed de novo on the merits. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Tattersfield Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2018 9:53 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FOR REVIEW: Updated Draft Final Report Thanks George for the reminder about the lack of html formatting on the mailing lists - Its like something out the ark from the early days of the internet. On option #1 text - "Similarly, where an IGO chooses to defend its immunity claim against a registrant in court and succeeds, the legal proceedings should be conducted as if the UDRP or URS determination was never made." I know what you are try to convey but ICANN has no control over any legal proceedings so the text can not stand as is. Decisional sequencing is involved, what we need to concentrate on is a dismissal on lack of personal jurisdiction prior to a decision on the merits. This too important to be in a minority opinion. On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 2:20 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: I wouldn't support removal of that last line of Option #1's explanation. That's an important line. If anything, we should be expanding the explanatory text, not reducing it. [changing 'mirror' to 'align' is fine] That's a point I made (#17) in my earlier comments: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001349.html Given the compressed timeline [well, not really a 'given', since we're arguing about it!], rather than expanding each of them further, the better option might be to leave expanded text to the minority reports, as I noted in comment #17. By the way, none of the HTML formatting appears properly in the web archive: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001357.html When suggesting changes, it's best to keep that in mind, so that there's a proper historical record on the mailing list. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com<mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com>> wrote:
In section 2.1.1 under Recommendation #5 (pages 17 – 21) please can we consider making the following changes?
Option #1 text
This option was suggested to mirror align with the situation where an IGO, instead of filing a UDRP or URS complaint, chooses to file a lawsuit in court. In such an event, the IGO will not be entitled to any jurisdictional immunity (having elected to initiate the proceedings) and the court will proceed to decide the case on its merits. Similarly, where an IGO chooses to defend its immunity claim against a registrant in court and succeeds, the legal proceedings should be conducted as if the UDRP or URS determination was never made.
Option #3 text
This option was suggested in an attempt to balance the group’s agreement that, for all six options, any additional outcomes should be permitted only after an IGO has successfully claimed immunity in court with GAC advice for appeals to be handled by an arbitral tribunal rather than via judicial proceedings.
This is very misleading option #3 existed prior to #2, #4, #5, #6
Option #6 text
This option was suggested following a review of the mandatory mediation step that is included in Nominet’s DRP for the .uk domain, and includes the ability to introduce an arbitration component (if the registrant also has the ability to choose this option) as well as aspects of Option 1.
This option was suggested following a review of the mandatory mediation step that is included in Nominet’s DRP for the .uk domain, and includes the ability to introduce an arbitration component (which the registrant is free to choose as an alternative to judicial proceedings) as well as aspects of Option 1.
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
I don’t understand the proposed language. If an IGO succeeds in asserting an immunity defense there will be no legal proceedings because the case will be dismissed. Neither do I - That's why I said the language shouldn't be there! . I struck out the language but George quoted form it using pure text and it didn't show the formatting! The basic rule for judicial “appeals” of UDRP decisions is that they are de novo proceedings with no reference on the merits to the preceding UDRP; they are not determined per the UDRP factors but under the statute law of the jurisdiction regarding trademark infringement. Reference to the preceding UDRP case would arise where an immunity defense is raised on the question of whether the IGO waived immunity by filing a UDRP, but if the defense is not successful the proceeding will proceed de novo on the merits. The precise nature of the judicial proceeding is not relevant, what we need to concentrate on is the difference between a victory on the merits as opposed to a jurisdictional dismissal. On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
I don’t understand the proposed language.
If an IGO succeeds in asserting an immunity defense there will be no legal proceedings because the case will be dismissed.
The basic rule for judicial “appeals” of UDRP decisions is that they are de novo proceedings with no reference on the merits to the preceding UDRP; they are not determined per the UDRP factors but under the statute law of the jurisdiction regarding trademark infringement. Reference to the preceding UDRP case would arise where an immunity defense is raised on the question of whether the IGO waived immunity by filing a UDRP, but if the defense is not successful the proceeding will proceed de novo on the merits.
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190+%0D%0A+...> Reston, VA 20190
703 <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190+%0D%0A+...> -948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul Tattersfield *Sent:* Thursday, July 05, 2018 9:53 AM *To:* George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> *Cc:* gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FOR REVIEW: Updated Draft Final Report
Thanks George for the reminder about the lack of html formatting on the mailing lists - Its like something out the ark from the early days of the internet.
On option #1 text - "Similarly, where an IGO chooses to defend its immunity claim against a registrant in court and succeeds, the legal proceedings should be conducted as if the UDRP or URS determination was never made."
I know what you are try to convey but ICANN has no control over any legal proceedings so the text can not stand as is. Decisional sequencing is involved, what we need to concentrate on is a dismissal on lack of personal jurisdiction prior to a decision on the merits. This too important to be in a minority opinion.
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 2:20 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
I wouldn't support removal of that last line of Option #1's explanation. That's an important line. If anything, we should be expanding the explanatory text, not reducing it. [changing 'mirror' to 'align' is fine] That's a point I made (#17) in my earlier comments:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001349.html
Given the compressed timeline [well, not really a 'given', since we're arguing about it!], rather than expanding each of them further, the better option might be to leave expanded text to the minority reports, as I noted in comment #17.
By the way, none of the HTML formatting appears properly in the web archive:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001357.html
When suggesting changes, it's best to keep that in mind, so that there's a proper historical record on the mailing list.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
In section 2.1.1 under Recommendation #5 (pages 17 – 21) please can we consider making the following changes?
Option #1 text
This option was suggested to mirror align with the situation where an IGO, instead of filing a UDRP or URS complaint, chooses to file a lawsuit in court. In such an event, the IGO will not be entitled to any jurisdictional immunity (having elected to initiate the proceedings) and the court will proceed to decide the case on its merits. Similarly, where an IGO chooses to defend its immunity claim against a registrant in court and succeeds, the legal proceedings should be conducted as if the UDRP or URS determination was never made.
Option #3 text
This option was suggested in an attempt to balance the group’s agreement that, for all six options, any additional outcomes should be permitted only after an IGO has successfully claimed immunity in court with GAC advice for appeals to be handled by an arbitral tribunal rather than via judicial proceedings.
This is very misleading option #3 existed prior to #2, #4, #5, #6
Option #6 text
This option was suggested following a review of the mandatory mediation step that is included in Nominet’s DRP for the .uk domain, and includes the ability to introduce an arbitration component (if the registrant also has the ability to choose this option) as well as aspects of Option 1.
This option was suggested following a review of the mandatory mediation step that is included in Nominet’s DRP for the .uk domain, and includes the ability to introduce an arbitration component (which the registrant is free to choose as an alternative to judicial proceedings) as well as aspects of Option 1.
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
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote: 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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
It can be reworded slightly, but the key was that the UDRP/URS decision is set aside, so that it can't impact any future legal proceedings. Your point is already captured by the first part of that sentence, though. Perhaps something like: "Similarly, where an IGO chooses to assert an immunity defense against a registrant's claim in court and succeeds in avoiding a decision based on the underlying merits of the dispute, the UDRP or URS determination should be set aside so that both parties are in the exact same legal position they were prior to the UDRP or URS dispute (with all rights of each side intact). This ensures that any subsequent litigation is not prejudiced or interfered with by the UDRP or URS determinations and that any litigation regarding the domain name can truly be conducted on a de novo basis." Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks George for the reminder about the lack of html formatting on the mailing lists - Its like something out the ark from the early days of the internet.
On option #1 text - "Similarly, where an IGO chooses to defend its immunity claim against a registrant in court and succeeds, the legal proceedings should be conducted as if the UDRP or URS determination was never made."
I know what you are try to convey but ICANN has no control over any legal proceedings so the text can not stand as is. Decisional sequencing is involved, what we need to concentrate on is a dismissal on lack of personal jurisdiction prior to a decision on the merits. This too important to be in a minority opinion.
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 2:20 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
I wouldn't support removal of that last line of Option #1's explanation. That's an important line. If anything, we should be expanding the explanatory text, not reducing it. [changing 'mirror' to 'align' is fine] That's a point I made (#17) in my earlier comments:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001349.html
Given the compressed timeline [well, not really a 'given', since we're arguing about it!], rather than expanding each of them further, the better option might be to leave expanded text to the minority reports, as I noted in comment #17.
By the way, none of the HTML formatting appears properly in the web archive:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001357.html
When suggesting changes, it's best to keep that in mind, so that there's a proper historical record on the mailing list.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote:
In section 2.1.1 under Recommendation #5 (pages 17 – 21) please can we consider making the following changes?
Option #1 text
This option was suggested to mirror align with the situation where an IGO, instead of filing a UDRP or URS complaint, chooses to file a lawsuit in court. In such an event, the IGO will not be entitled to any jurisdictional immunity (having elected to initiate the proceedings) and the court will proceed to decide the case on its merits. Similarly, where an IGO chooses to defend its immunity claim against a registrant in court and succeeds, the legal proceedings should be conducted as if the UDRP or URS determination was never made.
Option #3 text
This option was suggested in an attempt to balance the group’s agreement that, for all six options, any additional outcomes should be permitted only after an IGO has successfully claimed immunity in court with GAC advice for appeals to be handled by an arbitral tribunal rather than via judicial proceedings.
This is very misleading option #3 existed prior to #2, #4, #5, #6
Option #6 text
This option was suggested following a review of the mandatory mediation step that is included in Nominet’s DRP for the .uk domain, and includes the ability to introduce an arbitration component (if the registrant also has the ability to choose this option) as well as aspects of Option 1.
This option was suggested following a review of the mandatory mediation step that is included in Nominet’s DRP for the .uk domain, and includes the ability to introduce an arbitration component (which the registrant is free to choose as an alternative to judicial proceedings) as well as aspects of Option 1.
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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
If that is supposed to be a rationale for Option 1 the language should be determined by those who support it. I am not in that camp. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2018 10:14 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FOR REVIEW: Updated Draft Final Report It can be reworded slightly, but the key was that the UDRP/URS decision is set aside, so that it can't impact any future legal proceedings. Your point is already captured by the first part of that sentence, though. Perhaps something like: "Similarly, where an IGO chooses to assert an immunity defense against a registrant's claim in court and succeeds in avoiding a decision based on the underlying merits of the dispute, the UDRP or URS determination should be set aside so that both parties are in the exact same legal position they were prior to the UDRP or URS dispute (with all rights of each side intact). This ensures that any subsequent litigation is not prejudiced or interfered with by the UDRP or URS determinations and that any litigation regarding the domain name can truly be conducted on a de novo basis." Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks George for the reminder about the lack of html formatting on the mailing lists - Its like something out the ark from the early days of the internet.
On option #1 text - "Similarly, where an IGO chooses to defend its immunity claim against a registrant in court and succeeds, the legal proceedings should be conducted as if the UDRP or URS determination was never made."
I know what you are try to convey but ICANN has no control over any legal proceedings so the text can not stand as is. Decisional sequencing is involved, what we need to concentrate on is a dismissal on lack of personal jurisdiction prior to a decision on the merits. This too important to be in a minority opinion.
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 2:20 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
I wouldn't support removal of that last line of Option #1's explanation. That's an important line. If anything, we should be expanding the explanatory text, not reducing it. [changing 'mirror' to 'align' is fine] That's a point I made (#17) in my earlier comments:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001349.htm l
Given the compressed timeline [well, not really a 'given', since we're arguing about it!], rather than expanding each of them further, the better option might be to leave expanded text to the minority reports, as I noted in comment #17.
By the way, none of the HTML formatting appears properly in the web archive:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001357.htm l
When suggesting changes, it's best to keep that in mind, so that there's a proper historical record on the mailing list.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote:
In section 2.1.1 under Recommendation #5 (pages 17 – 21) please can we consider making the following changes?
Option #1 text
This option was suggested to mirror align with the situation where an IGO, instead of filing a UDRP or URS complaint, chooses to file a lawsuit in court. In such an event, the IGO will not be entitled to any jurisdictional immunity (having elected to initiate the proceedings) and the court will proceed to decide the case on its merits. Similarly, where an IGO chooses to defend its immunity claim against a registrant in court and succeeds, the legal proceedings should be conducted as if the UDRP or URS determination was never made.
Option #3 text
This option was suggested in an attempt to balance the group’s agreement that, for all six options, any additional outcomes should be permitted only after an IGO has successfully claimed immunity in court with GAC advice for appeals to be handled by an arbitral tribunal rather than via judicial proceedings.
This is very misleading option #3 existed prior to #2, #4, #5, #6
Option #6 text
This option was suggested following a review of the mandatory mediation step that is included in Nominet’s DRP for the .uk domain, and includes the ability to introduce an arbitration component (if the registrant also has the ability to choose this option) as well as aspects of Option 1.
This option was suggested following a review of the mandatory mediation step that is included in Nominet’s DRP for the .uk domain, and includes the ability to introduce an arbitration component (which the registrant is free to choose as an alternative to judicial proceedings) as well as aspects of Option 1.
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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
P.S. These are all new paragraphs, as the prior draft (from May 11th) didn't have expanded text for Recommendation 5's options. That prior draft report (from May 11) is at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001197.html My comments to that older draft were at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001206.html where I briefly summarized the 6 options in point #8 (although staff used their own words, and took from other people too in making that entire 4 page section, if you look at the redline). What I wrote (including for Option #1) was: "8. Generally, I would suggest "explanatory text" to understand the basis for each of the 6 options on pages 45-46. The previous analysis (i.e. used in the October 2017 anonymous poll, as well as in advance of the March 2018 office hours) was perhaps non-neutral. Given I may myself not be considered "neutral", I would suggest possible text be agreed upon by the group. e.g. [not final text, just possible starting point!]" a) Option #1 -- attempts to put the parties back in the same legal positions they were before the UDRP/URS was initiated, thus IGO as complainant can proceed to the courts without the UDRP/URS having caused any interference with anyone's legal rights" (those were page numbers from the May 11th draft) Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 10:14 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
It can be reworded slightly, but the key was that the UDRP/URS decision is set aside, so that it can't impact any future legal proceedings. Your point is already captured by the first part of that sentence, though. Perhaps something like:
"Similarly, where an IGO chooses to assert an immunity defense against a registrant's claim in court and succeeds in avoiding a decision based on the underlying merits of the dispute, the UDRP or URS determination should be set aside so that both parties are in the exact same legal position they were prior to the UDRP or URS dispute (with all rights of each side intact). This ensures that any subsequent litigation is not prejudiced or interfered with by the UDRP or URS determinations and that any litigation regarding the domain name can truly be conducted on a de novo basis."
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks George for the reminder about the lack of html formatting on the mailing lists - Its like something out the ark from the early days of the internet.
On option #1 text - "Similarly, where an IGO chooses to defend its immunity claim against a registrant in court and succeeds, the legal proceedings should be conducted as if the UDRP or URS determination was never made."
I know what you are try to convey but ICANN has no control over any legal proceedings so the text can not stand as is. Decisional sequencing is involved, what we need to concentrate on is a dismissal on lack of personal jurisdiction prior to a decision on the merits. This too important to be in a minority opinion.
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 2:20 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
I wouldn't support removal of that last line of Option #1's explanation. That's an important line. If anything, we should be expanding the explanatory text, not reducing it. [changing 'mirror' to 'align' is fine] That's a point I made (#17) in my earlier comments:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001349.html
Given the compressed timeline [well, not really a 'given', since we're arguing about it!], rather than expanding each of them further, the better option might be to leave expanded text to the minority reports, as I noted in comment #17.
By the way, none of the HTML formatting appears properly in the web archive:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001357.html
When suggesting changes, it's best to keep that in mind, so that there's a proper historical record on the mailing list.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote:
In section 2.1.1 under Recommendation #5 (pages 17 – 21) please can we consider making the following changes?
Option #1 text
This option was suggested to mirror align with the situation where an IGO, instead of filing a UDRP or URS complaint, chooses to file a lawsuit in court. In such an event, the IGO will not be entitled to any jurisdictional immunity (having elected to initiate the proceedings) and the court will proceed to decide the case on its merits. Similarly, where an IGO chooses to defend its immunity claim against a registrant in court and succeeds, the legal proceedings should be conducted as if the UDRP or URS determination was never made.
Option #3 text
This option was suggested in an attempt to balance the group’s agreement that, for all six options, any additional outcomes should be permitted only after an IGO has successfully claimed immunity in court with GAC advice for appeals to be handled by an arbitral tribunal rather than via judicial proceedings.
This is very misleading option #3 existed prior to #2, #4, #5, #6
Option #6 text
This option was suggested following a review of the mandatory mediation step that is included in Nominet’s DRP for the .uk domain, and includes the ability to introduce an arbitration component (if the registrant also has the ability to choose this option) as well as aspects of Option 1.
This option was suggested following a review of the mandatory mediation step that is included in Nominet’s DRP for the .uk domain, and includes the ability to introduce an arbitration component (which the registrant is free to choose as an alternative to judicial proceedings) as well as aspects of Option 1.
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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
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 6*ter* 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 6*ter* 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 6*ter*, 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
If a citation might help for Paul T's suggested text, one can refer to Section 3.18 of the RAA: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/abuse-2014-01-29-en https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#3.18 and the same applies for some registry operators for gTLDs: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/abuse-contact-2014-01-29-en A link to: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/update-on-steps-to-combat-abuse-and-illegal-... may also be useful. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:23 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
participants (4)
-
Corwin, Philip -
George Kirikos -
Mary Wong -
Paul Tattersfield