GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group)
Dear all, On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP Working Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan mentions in her 10 April email (below). You should already have received the calendar invitation and call details for the next Working Group call, currently scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of 1600 UTC. Susan will be on the call to discuss the report and proposed next steps with everyone. Thanks and cheers Mary & Steve From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group members, I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process that was set out in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during ICANN61 and following. As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a report for the Working Group on the input received at and since ICANN61, with recommendations on next steps from me and Heather Forrest, the GNSO Chair. We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this week, for discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual time next Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to present a summary of the report and its recommendations, and answer questions from WG members. An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly. Bear in mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate arrangements will be made to support our call. In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide me with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of the group on this challenging policy area. Kind regards, Susan Kawaguchi Councilor for the Business Constituency
Hi folks, With regards to the Summary Report which is to be discussed tomorrow, there are several parts of it that I disagree with, which I'll discuss orally tomorrow during our call. However, some parts deserve a written response, given that they contain supporting links (and the WebEx interface really sucks, compared to Adobe Connect) so it's best to post them in advance of the call. 1. On page 2, it's asserted that "the number of active participants is extremely low" (it's also repeated on page 3, i.e. "small number of participants' views"). However, that's not consistent with the facts. For example, the IRTP-D PDP, the most recently completed GNSO PDP according to: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive has its attendance logs at: https://community.icann.org/display/ITPIPDWG/Attendance+Log If one adds up the "total attended" column, and divide it by the total number of meetings, one obtains the average attendance per meeting: Sum of total attended column = 553 Total meetings = 56 Average = 9.88 per meeting It is of note that both the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board adopted their recommendations: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-d Now, let's compare this to the IGO PDP and its attendance records: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Attendance+Records Sum of total attended column = 711 Total meetings = 71 Average = 10.01 per meeting So, there has actually been HIGHER average attendance (10.01 vs 9.88 per meeting) in this IGO PDP, compared to the IRTP-D whose work was successfully completed. 2. On page 3, it's claimed that adoption of Option 4 "will require a Charter amendment" for that other PDP." I'm not convinced that that's a requirement. The RPM PDP charter is at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+Charter?preview=3D/5872= 9944/58730036/Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final.pdf and states on page 3 of the charter that: "(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts In the course of its work, the Working Group should monitor the progress of and, where appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN groups that are working on topics that may overlap with or ***otherwise provide useful input to this PDP.*** .... In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT Review, and ***any other relevant GNSO policy development***" (emphasis added) So, I think this situation was already covered by the RPM PDP's current charter, and doesn't need an amendment. As I mentioned earlier, there are other parts of the Summary Report I have concerns about, but I'll save them for tomorrow's call, as they don't require any links/quotes. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP Working Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan mentions in her 10 April email (below). You should already have received the calendar invitation and call details for the next Working Group call, currently scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of 1600 UTC. Susan will be on the call to discuss the report and proposed next steps with everyone.
Thanks and cheers
Mary & Steve
From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group
Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group members,
I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process that was set out in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during ICANN61 and following.
As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a report for the Working Group on the input received at and since ICANN61, with recommendations on next steps from me and Heather Forrest, the GNSO Chair. We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this week, for discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual time next Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to present a summary of the report and its recommendations, and answer questions from WG members.
An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly. Bear in mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate arrangements will be made to support our call.
In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide me with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of the group on this challenging policy area.
Kind regards,
Susan Kawaguchi
Councilor for the Business Constituency
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Dear ICANN, I agree with George, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the call later today as I have another meeting half way across the country which clashes with your call. I will listen to the call afterwards and submit any comments to the email list, sorry for any inconvenience. Please accept my apologies Briefly, I would also like to point out: The IGO's have accepted the principle of coexistence and as they are initiating the proceedings they have no immunity rights whatsoever in either the initial action or any follow on proceedings. This is an incredibly simple legal principle and I can not find ANY jurisdiction in the world on ANY matter not just domain names where an IGO would be entitled to do so. The matter is only confused because the Swaine reasoning looked at the case where others are initiating an action against the IGOs i.e. a trademark owner looking to seize an IGO's asset. Clearly the expert report is not relevant to the case the working group is considering where the IGO's are initiating proceedings. The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end. I also note with some dismay that only 2 people in the private office sessions said they were not prepared to accept any other option than option 3 - the 2 co-chairs preferred option. We have an opportunity in this working group to set an example to the RPM working group using any IGO cases to show how UDRP can be easily improved for all parties in a way that does not tilt the balance in either side's favour but just improves process and reduces costs for all parties and meets the GAC's advice. It really is incredibly easy - Free private mediation and a separate (voluntary for registrants) arbitration track. If you want more registrants to CHOOSE arbitration simply make it cheaper, faster and less risky (name only) than the judicial route. This could be sorted in a handful of meetings and no interest group has lost anything! Yours sincerely, Paul. On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:38 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
With regards to the Summary Report which is to be discussed tomorrow, there are several parts of it that I disagree with, which I'll discuss orally tomorrow during our call. However, some parts deserve a written response, given that they contain supporting links (and the WebEx interface really sucks, compared to Adobe Connect) so it's best to post them in advance of the call.
1. On page 2, it's asserted that "the number of active participants is extremely low" (it's also repeated on page 3, i.e. "small number of participants' views"). However, that's not consistent with the facts. For example, the IRTP-D PDP, the most recently completed GNSO PDP according to:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive
has its attendance logs at:
https://community.icann.org/display/ITPIPDWG/Attendance+Log
If one adds up the "total attended" column, and divide it by the total number of meetings, one obtains the average attendance per meeting:
Sum of total attended column = 553 Total meetings = 56 Average = 9.88 per meeting
It is of note that both the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board adopted their recommendations:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-d
Now, let's compare this to the IGO PDP and its attendance records:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Attendance+Records
Sum of total attended column = 711 Total meetings = 71 Average = 10.01 per meeting
So, there has actually been HIGHER average attendance (10.01 vs 9.88 per meeting) in this IGO PDP, compared to the IRTP-D whose work was successfully completed.
2. On page 3, it's claimed that adoption of Option 4 "will require a Charter amendment" for that other PDP." I'm not convinced that that's a requirement. The RPM PDP charter is at:
https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+ Charter?preview=3D/5872= 9944/58730036/Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final.pdf
and states on page 3 of the charter that:
"(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts In the course of its work, the Working Group should monitor the progress of and, where appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN groups that are working on topics that may overlap with or ***otherwise provide useful input to this PDP.*** .... In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT Review, and ***any other relevant GNSO policy development***"
(emphasis added)
So, I think this situation was already covered by the RPM PDP's current charter, and doesn't need an amendment.
As I mentioned earlier, there are other parts of the Summary Report I have concerns about, but I'll save them for tomorrow's call, as they don't require any links/quotes.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP Working Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan mentions in her 10 April email (below). You should already have received the calendar invitation and call details for the next Working Group call, currently scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of 1600 UTC. Susan will be on the call to discuss the report and proposed next steps with everyone.
Thanks and cheers
Mary & Steve
From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group
Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group members,
I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process that was set out in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during ICANN61 and following.
As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a report for the Working Group on the input received at and since ICANN61, with recommendations on next steps from me and Heather Forrest, the GNSO Chair. We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this week, for discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual time next Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to present a summary of the report and its recommendations, and answer questions from WG members.
An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly. Bear in mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate arrangements will be made to support our call.
In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide me with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of the group on this challenging policy area.
Kind regards,
Susan Kawaguchi
Councilor for the Business Constituency
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear all, I am sorry but I am traveling today and wont be able to participate in the call. Best regards, Osvaldo El 19 abr. 2018, a la(s) 05:01, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com<mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com>> escribió: Dear ICANN, I agree with George, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the call later today as I have another meeting half way across the country which clashes with your call. I will listen to the call afterwards and submit any comments to the email list, sorry for any inconvenience. Please accept my apologies Briefly, I would also like to point out: The IGO's have accepted the principle of coexistence and as they are initiating the proceedings they have no immunity rights whatsoever in either the initial action or any follow on proceedings. This is an incredibly simple legal principle and I can not find ANY jurisdiction in the world on ANY matter not just domain names where an IGO would be entitled to do so. The matter is only confused because the Swaine reasoning looked at the case where others are initiating an action against the IGOs i.e. a trademark owner looking to seize an IGO's asset. Clearly the expert report is not relevant to the case the working group is considering where the IGO's are initiating proceedings. The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end. I also note with some dismay that only 2 people in the private office sessions said they were not prepared to accept any other option than option 3 - the 2 co-chairs preferred option. We have an opportunity in this working group to set an example to the RPM working group using any IGO cases to show how UDRP can be easily improved for all parties in a way that does not tilt the balance in either side's favour but just improves process and reduces costs for all parties and meets the GAC's advice. It really is incredibly easy - Free private mediation and a separate (voluntary for registrants) arbitration track. If you want more registrants to CHOOSE arbitration simply make it cheaper, faster and less risky (name only) than the judicial route. This could be sorted in a handful of meetings and no interest group has lost anything! Yours sincerely, Paul. On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:38 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Hi folks, With regards to the Summary Report which is to be discussed tomorrow, there are several parts of it that I disagree with, which I'll discuss orally tomorrow during our call. However, some parts deserve a written response, given that they contain supporting links (and the WebEx interface really sucks, compared to Adobe Connect) so it's best to post them in advance of the call. 1. On page 2, it's asserted that "the number of active participants is extremely low" (it's also repeated on page 3, i.e. "small number of participants' views"). However, that's not consistent with the facts. For example, the IRTP-D PDP, the most recently completed GNSO PDP according to: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive has its attendance logs at: https://community.icann.org/display/ITPIPDWG/Attendance+Log If one adds up the "total attended" column, and divide it by the total number of meetings, one obtains the average attendance per meeting: Sum of total attended column = 553 Total meetings = 56 Average = 9.88 per meeting It is of note that both the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board adopted their recommendations: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-d Now, let's compare this to the IGO PDP and its attendance records: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Attendance+Records Sum of total attended column = 711 Total meetings = 71 Average = 10.01 per meeting So, there has actually been HIGHER average attendance (10.01 vs 9.88 per meeting) in this IGO PDP, compared to the IRTP-D whose work was successfully completed. 2. On page 3, it's claimed that adoption of Option 4 "will require a Charter amendment" for that other PDP." I'm not convinced that that's a requirement. The RPM PDP charter is at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+Charter?preview=3D/5872= 9944/58730036/Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final.pdf and states on page 3 of the charter that: "(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts In the course of its work, the Working Group should monitor the progress of and, where appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN groups that are working on topics that may overlap with or ***otherwise provide useful input to this PDP.*** .... In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT Review, and ***any other relevant GNSO policy development***" (emphasis added) So, I think this situation was already covered by the RPM PDP's current charter, and doesn't need an amendment. As I mentioned earlier, there are other parts of the Summary Report I have concerns about, but I'll save them for tomorrow's call, as they don't require any links/quotes. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP Working Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan mentions in her 10 April email (below). You should already have received the calendar invitation and call details for the next Working Group call, currently scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of 1600 UTC. Susan will be on the call to discuss the report and proposed next steps with everyone.
Thanks and cheers
Mary & Steve
From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com<mailto:susankpolicy@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group
Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group members,
I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process that was set out in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during ICANN61 and following.
As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a report for the Working Group on the input received at and since ICANN61, with recommendations on next steps from me and Heather Forrest, the GNSO Chair. We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this week, for discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual time next Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to present a summary of the report and its recommendations, and answer questions from WG members.
An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly. Bear in mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate arrangements will be made to support our call.
In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide me with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of the group on this challenging policy area.
Kind regards,
Susan Kawaguchi
Councilor for the Business Constituency
_______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
Dear Osvaldo, Thank you for this, your apology has been noted. Kind regards, Nathalie On 4/19/18, 12:50 PM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of Novoa, Osvaldo" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of onovoa@Antel.com.uy> wrote: Dear all, I am sorry but I am traveling today and wont be able to participate in the call. Best regards, Osvaldo El 19 abr. 2018, a la(s) 05:01, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com<mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com>> escribió: Dear ICANN, I agree with George, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the call later today as I have another meeting half way across the country which clashes with your call. I will listen to the call afterwards and submit any comments to the email list, sorry for any inconvenience. Please accept my apologies Briefly, I would also like to point out: The IGO's have accepted the principle of coexistence and as they are initiating the proceedings they have no immunity rights whatsoever in either the initial action or any follow on proceedings. This is an incredibly simple legal principle and I can not find ANY jurisdiction in the world on ANY matter not just domain names where an IGO would be entitled to do so. The matter is only confused because the Swaine reasoning looked at the case where others are initiating an action against the IGOs i.e. a trademark owner looking to seize an IGO's asset. Clearly the expert report is not relevant to the case the working group is considering where the IGO's are initiating proceedings. The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end. I also note with some dismay that only 2 people in the private office sessions said they were not prepared to accept any other option than option 3 - the 2 co-chairs preferred option. We have an opportunity in this working group to set an example to the RPM working group using any IGO cases to show how UDRP can be easily improved for all parties in a way that does not tilt the balance in either side's favour but just improves process and reduces costs for all parties and meets the GAC's advice. It really is incredibly easy - Free private mediation and a separate (voluntary for registrants) arbitration track. If you want more registrants to CHOOSE arbitration simply make it cheaper, faster and less risky (name only) than the judicial route. This could be sorted in a handful of meetings and no interest group has lost anything! Yours sincerely, Paul. On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:38 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Hi folks, With regards to the Summary Report which is to be discussed tomorrow, there are several parts of it that I disagree with, which I'll discuss orally tomorrow during our call. However, some parts deserve a written response, given that they contain supporting links (and the WebEx interface really sucks, compared to Adobe Connect) so it's best to post them in advance of the call. 1. On page 2, it's asserted that "the number of active participants is extremely low" (it's also repeated on page 3, i.e. "small number of participants' views"). However, that's not consistent with the facts. For example, the IRTP-D PDP, the most recently completed GNSO PDP according to: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group... has its attendance logs at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis... If one adds up the "total attended" column, and divide it by the total number of meetings, one obtains the average attendance per meeting: Sum of total attended column = 553 Total meetings = 56 Average = 9.88 per meeting It is of note that both the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board adopted their recommendations: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group... Now, let's compare this to the IGO PDP and its attendance records: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis... Sum of total attended column = 711 Total meetings = 71 Average = 10.01 per meeting So, there has actually been HIGHER average attendance (10.01 vs 9.88 per meeting) in this IGO PDP, compared to the IRTP-D whose work was successfully completed. 2. On page 3, it's claimed that adoption of Option 4 "will require a Charter amendment" for that other PDP." I'm not convinced that that's a requirement. The RPM PDP charter is at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis... 9944/58730036/Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final.pdf and states on page 3 of the charter that: "(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts In the course of its work, the Working Group should monitor the progress of and, where appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN groups that are working on topics that may overlap with or ***otherwise provide useful input to this PDP.*** .... In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT Review, and ***any other relevant GNSO policy development***" (emphasis added) So, I think this situation was already covered by the RPM PDP's current charter, and doesn't need an amendment. As I mentioned earlier, there are other parts of the Summary Report I have concerns about, but I'll save them for tomorrow's call, as they don't require any links/quotes. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIFAw&c... On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: > Dear all, > > > > On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP Working > Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan mentions in her 10 > April email (below). You should already have received the calendar > invitation and call details for the next Working Group call, currently > scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of 1600 UTC. Susan > will be on the call to discuss the report and proposed next steps with > everyone. > > > > Thanks and cheers > > Mary & Steve > > > > From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com<mailto:susankpolicy@gmail.com>> > Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26 > To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> > Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>>, Mary Wong > <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> > Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working > Group > > > > Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group > members, > > > > I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this Working > Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process that was set out > in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during ICANN61 and following. > > > > As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a report for > the Working Group on the input received at and since ICANN61, with > recommendations on next steps from me and Heather Forrest, the GNSO Chair. > We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this week, for > discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual time next > Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to present a summary of > the report and its recommendations, and answer questions from WG members. > > > > An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly. Bear in > mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate arrangements will be > made to support our call. > > > > In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide me > with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of the group > on this challenging policy area. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Susan Kawaguchi > > Councilor for the Business Constituency > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy. _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Paul: For the record, and in regard to this – The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end. The discussion within the WG was not blocked by the co-chairs. It was blocked because George filed a section 3.7 Appeal at the point in time when the co-chairs wished to initiate the consensus call process. The co-chairs later offered to rescind holding an anonymous poll of the full WG but George rejected that approach and continued his appeal. So far as I am aware you supported George in these actions. Other than speaking with Susan in their individual capacity as WG members the co-chairs had no control over the content of her report. Speaking only for myself, I do not agree with your characterization of the Swaine memo and believe it was highly relevant to the central issue before the WG. Philip 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, April 19, 2018 5:01 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: Donna.Austin@team.neustar; Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group) Dear ICANN, I agree with George, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the call later today as I have another meeting half way across the country which clashes with your call. I will listen to the call afterwards and submit any comments to the email list, sorry for any inconvenience. Please accept my apologies Briefly, I would also like to point out: The IGO's have accepted the principle of coexistence and as they are initiating the proceedings they have no immunity rights whatsoever in either the initial action or any follow on proceedings. This is an incredibly simple legal principle and I can not find ANY jurisdiction in the world on ANY matter not just domain names where an IGO would be entitled to do so. The matter is only confused because the Swaine reasoning looked at the case where others are initiating an action against the IGOs i.e. a trademark owner looking to seize an IGO's asset. Clearly the expert report is not relevant to the case the working group is considering where the IGO's are initiating proceedings. The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end. I also note with some dismay that only 2 people in the private office sessions said they were not prepared to accept any other option than option 3 - the 2 co-chairs preferred option. We have an opportunity in this working group to set an example to the RPM working group using any IGO cases to show how UDRP can be easily improved for all parties in a way that does not tilt the balance in either side's favour but just improves process and reduces costs for all parties and meets the GAC's advice. It really is incredibly easy - Free private mediation and a separate (voluntary for registrants) arbitration track. If you want more registrants to CHOOSE arbitration simply make it cheaper, faster and less risky (name only) than the judicial route. This could be sorted in a handful of meetings and no interest group has lost anything! Yours sincerely, Paul. On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:38 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Hi folks, With regards to the Summary Report which is to be discussed tomorrow, there are several parts of it that I disagree with, which I'll discuss orally tomorrow during our call. However, some parts deserve a written response, given that they contain supporting links (and the WebEx interface really sucks, compared to Adobe Connect) so it's best to post them in advance of the call. 1. On page 2, it's asserted that "the number of active participants is extremely low" (it's also repeated on page 3, i.e. "small number of participants' views"). However, that's not consistent with the facts. For example, the IRTP-D PDP, the most recently completed GNSO PDP according to: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive has its attendance logs at: https://community.icann.org/display/ITPIPDWG/Attendance+Log If one adds up the "total attended" column, and divide it by the total number of meetings, one obtains the average attendance per meeting: Sum of total attended column = 553 Total meetings = 56 Average = 9.88 per meeting It is of note that both the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board adopted their recommendations: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-d Now, let's compare this to the IGO PDP and its attendance records: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Attendance+Records Sum of total attended column = 711 Total meetings = 71 Average = 10.01 per meeting So, there has actually been HIGHER average attendance (10.01 vs 9.88 per meeting) in this IGO PDP, compared to the IRTP-D whose work was successfully completed. 2. On page 3, it's claimed that adoption of Option 4 "will require a Charter amendment" for that other PDP." I'm not convinced that that's a requirement. The RPM PDP charter is at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+Charter?preview=3D/5872= 9944/58730036/Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final.pdf and states on page 3 of the charter that: "(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts In the course of its work, the Working Group should monitor the progress of and, where appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN groups that are working on topics that may overlap with or ***otherwise provide useful input to this PDP.*** .... In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT Review, and ***any other relevant GNSO policy development***" (emphasis added) So, I think this situation was already covered by the RPM PDP's current charter, and doesn't need an amendment. As I mentioned earlier, there are other parts of the Summary Report I have concerns about, but I'll save them for tomorrow's call, as they don't require any links/quotes. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP Working Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan mentions in her 10 April email (below). You should already have received the calendar invitation and call details for the next Working Group call, currently scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of 1600 UTC. Susan will be on the call to discuss the report and proposed next steps with everyone.
Thanks and cheers
Mary & Steve
From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com<mailto:susankpolicy@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group
Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group members,
I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process that was set out in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during ICANN61 and following.
As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a report for the Working Group on the input received at and since ICANN61, with recommendations on next steps from me and Heather Forrest, the GNSO Chair. We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this week, for discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual time next Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to present a summary of the report and its recommendations, and answer questions from WG members.
An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly. Bear in mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate arrangements will be made to support our call.
In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide me with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of the group on this challenging policy area.
Kind regards,
Susan Kawaguchi
Councilor for the Business Constituency
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi folks, Phil's email is misleading and self-serving, attempting to shift the blame for lack of meetings to me. Go back to the mailing list archives and it's very clear exactly who blocked further meetings within the working group --- the co-chairs themselves, by their unilateral decision of December 21: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001024.html "Until we receive further direction from the Council, we will not be scheduling any further meetings for this Working Group or launching a poll and subsequent consensus call process." "We" in this case means "Phil and Petter". It was their choice, and their choice alone, to halt all the meetings since late December. You can read the entire email archive for the timeline of what led up to that email. As for their "too little, too late offer" (after seeing the high quality of the Section 3.7 appeal, that also sought a replacement for the co-chairs, so that the process could not be further manipulated) to rescind holding an anonymous poll -- that was rejected for valid reasons, namely that any poll at that time was inconsistent with the working group guidelines, and was inconsistent with what was on the table in the prior discussions. This was discussed before, at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-February/001086.html I assume the most recent call between the co-chairs, Heather and Susan is recorded (mentioned on page 2 of the Summary Report) is recorded, for transparency, as required by the Working Group guidelines. I'd like to listen to it. Please post it to the Wiki. The February 20, 2018 Section 3.7 call between myself, Paul T, Susan and Heather was posted: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/2018-02-20+Discussion+Call but the recording/transcript of the subsequent meeting between the co-chairs and Heather et al regarding the 3.7 appeal has never been posted on the wiki. That should be posted too, so we can transparently determine exactly what's happening. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 8:18 AM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Paul:
For the record, and in regard to this –
The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end.
The discussion within the WG was not blocked by the co-chairs. It was blocked because George filed a section 3.7 Appeal at the point in time when the co-chairs wished to initiate the consensus call process. The co-chairs later offered to rescind holding an anonymous poll of the full WG but George rejected that approach and continued his appeal. So far as I am aware you supported George in these actions.
Other than speaking with Susan in their individual capacity as WG members the co-chairs had no control over the content of her report.
Speaking only for myself, I do not agree with your characterization of the Swaine memo and believe it was highly relevant to the central issue before the WG.
Philip
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, April 19, 2018 5:01 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: Donna.Austin@team.neustar; Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group)
Dear ICANN,
I agree with George, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the call later today as I have another meeting half way across the country which clashes with your call. I will listen to the call afterwards and submit any comments to the email list, sorry for any inconvenience. Please accept my apologies
Briefly, I would also like to point out:
The IGO's have accepted the principle of coexistence and as they are initiating the proceedings they have no immunity rights whatsoever in either the initial action or any follow on proceedings. This is an incredibly simple legal principle and I can not find ANY jurisdiction in the world on ANY matter not just domain names where an IGO would be entitled to do so.
The matter is only confused because the Swaine reasoning looked at the case where others are initiating an action against the IGOs i.e. a trademark owner looking to seize an IGO's asset. Clearly the expert report is not relevant to the case the working group is considering where the IGO's are initiating proceedings.
The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end. I also note with some dismay that only 2 people in the private office sessions said they were not prepared to accept any other option than option 3 - the 2 co-chairs preferred option.
We have an opportunity in this working group to set an example to the RPM working group using any IGO cases to show how UDRP can be easily improved for all parties in a way that does not tilt the balance in either side's favour but just improves process and reduces costs for all parties and meets the GAC's advice.
It really is incredibly easy - Free private mediation and a separate (voluntary for registrants) arbitration track. If you want more registrants to CHOOSE arbitration simply make it cheaper, faster and less risky (name only) than the judicial route. This could be sorted in a handful of meetings and no interest group has lost anything!
Yours sincerely,
Paul.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:38 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
With regards to the Summary Report which is to be discussed tomorrow, there are several parts of it that I disagree with, which I'll discuss orally tomorrow during our call. However, some parts deserve a written response, given that they contain supporting links (and the WebEx interface really sucks, compared to Adobe Connect) so it's best to post them in advance of the call.
1. On page 2, it's asserted that "the number of active participants is extremely low" (it's also repeated on page 3, i.e. "small number of participants' views"). However, that's not consistent with the facts. For example, the IRTP-D PDP, the most recently completed GNSO PDP according to:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive
has its attendance logs at:
https://community.icann.org/display/ITPIPDWG/Attendance+Log
If one adds up the "total attended" column, and divide it by the total number of meetings, one obtains the average attendance per meeting:
Sum of total attended column = 553 Total meetings = 56 Average = 9.88 per meeting
It is of note that both the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board adopted their recommendations:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-d
Now, let's compare this to the IGO PDP and its attendance records:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Attendance+Records
Sum of total attended column = 711 Total meetings = 71 Average = 10.01 per meeting
So, there has actually been HIGHER average attendance (10.01 vs 9.88 per meeting) in this IGO PDP, compared to the IRTP-D whose work was successfully completed.
2. On page 3, it's claimed that adoption of Option 4 "will require a Charter amendment" for that other PDP." I'm not convinced that that's a requirement. The RPM PDP charter is at:
https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+Charter?preview=3D/5872= 9944/58730036/Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final.pdf
and states on page 3 of the charter that:
"(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts In the course of its work, the Working Group should monitor the progress of and, where appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN groups that are working on topics that may overlap with or ***otherwise provide useful input to this PDP.*** .... In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT Review, and ***any other relevant GNSO policy development***"
(emphasis added)
So, I think this situation was already covered by the RPM PDP's current charter, and doesn't need an amendment.
As I mentioned earlier, there are other parts of the Summary Report I have concerns about, but I'll save them for tomorrow's call, as they don't require any links/quotes.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP Working Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan mentions in her 10 April email (below). You should already have received the calendar invitation and call details for the next Working Group call, currently scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of 1600 UTC. Susan will be on the call to discuss the report and proposed next steps with everyone.
Thanks and cheers
Mary & Steve
From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group
Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group members,
I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process that was set out in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during ICANN61 and following.
As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a report for the Working Group on the input received at and since ICANN61, with recommendations on next steps from me and Heather Forrest, the GNSO Chair. We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this week, for discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual time next Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to present a summary of the report and its recommendations, and answer questions from WG members.
An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly. Bear in mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate arrangements will be made to support our call.
In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide me with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of the group on this challenging policy area.
Kind regards,
Susan Kawaguchi
Councilor for the Business Constituency
_______________________________________________ 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 for the record— * Of course the “we” in the December 21st email referred to Petter and I. It was the eve of the end of year holidays and our primary motivation as co-chairs was to protect George’s rights while his appeal remained pending. We had one view of how to proceed, he had a different view and had filed his appeal in his pursuit of it, and there was no clear or agreed upon way forward for the WG once he rejected our counteroffer. It was also our expectation that his appeal would be ruled upon in a matter of weeks, not months. In any event, I do not believe there was any objection to our announcement, noting that we expected there to be objection from George if we attempted to move forward before his appeal was resolved. * I once again categorically reject George’s allegation that the co-chairs attempted to manipulate the WG process or outcome. Proposing to poll the full membership of the WG to initiate the consensus call process cannot fairly be viewed as manipulation. At every stage of our activities we consulted with support staff to confirm that our interpretation of the WG Guidelines was reasonable and within the scope of our discretion. * The co-chairs did not speak together with Susan together or in any official capacity during her “office hours”. I spoke with her one-on-one (with staff taking notes) in my individual capacity, with the expectation that she would accord my views no more or less weight than those of any other WG members who took the opportunity to engage in dialogue with her. * If there is a recording and/or transcript of the call that Petter and I held with Susan, Heather, and support staff to discuss the draft proposal for moving forward then I certainly have no objection to public release. 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: George Kirikos [mailto:icann@leap.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 9:06 AM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> Cc: gpmgroup@gmail.com; Donna.Austin@team.neustar; haforrestesq@gmail.com; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group) Hi folks, Phil's email is misleading and self-serving, attempting to shift the blame for lack of meetings to me. Go back to the mailing list archives and it's very clear exactly who blocked further meetings within the working group --- the co-chairs themselves, by their unilateral decision of December 21: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001024.html "Until we receive further direction from the Council, we will not be scheduling any further meetings for this Working Group or launching a poll and subsequent consensus call process." "We" in this case means "Phil and Petter". It was their choice, and their choice alone, to halt all the meetings since late December. You can read the entire email archive for the timeline of what led up to that email. As for their "too little, too late offer" (after seeing the high quality of the Section 3.7 appeal, that also sought a replacement for the co-chairs, so that the process could not be further manipulated) to rescind holding an anonymous poll -- that was rejected for valid reasons, namely that any poll at that time was inconsistent with the working group guidelines, and was inconsistent with what was on the table in the prior discussions. This was discussed before, at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-February/001086.html I assume the most recent call between the co-chairs, Heather and Susan is recorded (mentioned on page 2 of the Summary Report) is recorded, for transparency, as required by the Working Group guidelines. I'd like to listen to it. Please post it to the Wiki. The February 20, 2018 Section 3.7 call between myself, Paul T, Susan and Heather was posted: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/2018-02-20+Discussion+Call but the recording/transcript of the subsequent meeting between the co-chairs and Heather et al regarding the 3.7 appeal has never been posted on the wiki. That should be posted too, so we can transparently determine exactly what's happening. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 8:18 AM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> wrote:
Paul:
For the record, and in regard to this –
The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to
discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue
level but the fact that working group officers can block its
discussion for months and months on end.
The discussion within the WG was not blocked by the co-chairs. It was
blocked because George filed a section 3.7 Appeal at the point in time
when the co-chairs wished to initiate the consensus call process. The
co-chairs later offered to rescind holding an anonymous poll of the
full WG but George rejected that approach and continued his appeal. So
far as I am aware you supported George in these actions.
Other than speaking with Susan in their individual capacity as WG
members the co-chairs had no control over the content of her report.
Speaking only for myself, I do not agree with your characterization of
the Swaine memo and believe it was highly relevant to the central
issue before the WG.
Philip
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, April 19, 2018 5:01 AM
To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>>
Cc: Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>; Heather Forrest
<haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>;
rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison
Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development
Process Working
Group)
Dear ICANN,
I agree with George, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the
call later today as I have another meeting half way across the country
which clashes with your call. I will listen to the call afterwards and
submit any comments to the email list, sorry for any inconvenience.
Please accept my apologies
Briefly, I would also like to point out:
The IGO's have accepted the principle of coexistence and as they are
initiating the proceedings they have no immunity rights whatsoever in
either the initial action or any follow on proceedings. This is an
incredibly simple legal principle and I can not find ANY jurisdiction
in the world on ANY matter not just domain names where an IGO would be entitled to do so.
The matter is only confused because the Swaine reasoning looked at the
case where others are initiating an action against the IGOs i.e. a
trademark owner looking to seize an IGO's asset. Clearly the expert
report is not relevant to the case the working group is considering
where the IGO's are initiating proceedings.
The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to
discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue
level but the fact that working group officers can block its
discussion for months and months on end. I also note with some dismay
that only 2 people in the private office sessions said they were not
prepared to accept any other option than option 3 - the 2 co-chairs preferred option.
We have an opportunity in this working group to set an example to the
RPM working group using any IGO cases to show how UDRP can be easily
improved for all parties in a way that does not tilt the balance in
either side's favour but just improves process and reduces costs for
all parties and meets the GAC's advice.
It really is incredibly easy - Free private mediation and a separate
(voluntary for registrants) arbitration track. If you want more
registrants to CHOOSE arbitration simply make it cheaper, faster and
less risky (name
only) than the judicial route. This could be sorted in a handful of
meetings and no interest group has lost anything!
Yours sincerely,
Paul.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:38 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote:
Hi folks,
With regards to the Summary Report which is to be discussed tomorrow,
there are several parts of it that I disagree with, which I'll discuss
orally tomorrow during our call. However, some parts deserve a written
response, given that they contain supporting links (and the WebEx
interface really sucks, compared to Adobe Connect) so it's best to
post them in advance of the call.
1. On page 2, it's asserted that "the number of active participants is
extremely low" (it's also repeated on page 3, i.e. "small number of
participants' views"). However, that's not consistent with the facts.
For example, the IRTP-D PDP, the most recently completed GNSO PDP
according to:
has its attendance logs at:
If one adds up the "total attended" column, and divide it by the total
number of meetings, one obtains the average attendance per meeting:
Sum of total attended column = 553
Total meetings = 56
Average = 9.88 per meeting
It is of note that both the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board adopted
their recommendations:
Now, let's compare this to the IGO PDP and its attendance records:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Attendance+Records
Sum of total attended column = 711
Total meetings = 71
Average = 10.01 per meeting
So, there has actually been HIGHER average attendance (10.01 vs 9.88
per meeting) in this IGO PDP, compared to the IRTP-D whose work was
successfully completed.
2. On page 3, it's claimed that adoption of Option 4 "will require a
Charter amendment" for that other PDP." I'm not convinced that that's
a requirement. The RPM PDP charter is at:
https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+Charter?preview=3D
/5872= 9944/58730036/Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final.pdf
and states on page 3 of the charter that:
"(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts In the course of its
work, the Working Group should monitor the progress of and, where
appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN groups that are working on
topics that may overlap with or ***otherwise provide useful input to
this PDP.*** ....
In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into
consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT
Review, and ***any other relevant GNSO policy development***"
(emphasis added)
So, I think this situation was already covered by the RPM PDP's
current charter, and doesn't need an amendment.
As I mentioned earlier, there are other parts of the Summary Report I
have concerns about, but I'll save them for tomorrow's call, as they
don't require any links/quotes.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP
Working Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan
mentions in her
10
April email (below). You should already have received the calendar
invitation and call details for the next Working Group call,
currently scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of
1600 UTC. Susan will be on the call to discuss the report and
proposed next steps with everyone.
Thanks and cheers
Mary & Steve
From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com<mailto:susankpolicy@gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26
To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>>
Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>>, Mary Wong
<mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>>
Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process
Working Group
Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working
Group members,
I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this
Working Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process
that was set out in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during
ICANN61 and following.
As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a
report for the Working Group on the input received at and since
ICANN61, with recommendations on next steps from me and Heather
Forrest, the GNSO Chair.
We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this
week, for discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual
time next Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to
present a summary of the report and its recommendations, and answer
questions from WG members.
An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly.
Bear in mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate
arrangements will be made to support our call.
In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide
me with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of
the group on this challenging policy area.
Kind regards,
Susan Kawaguchi
Councilor for the Business Constituency
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>
The first point in your email is clearly wrong, Phil. Your rejected "counter offer" wasn't in December, it was in February 2018! https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-February/001079.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-February/001080.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-February/001084.html etc. As for the 2nd point, the Section 3.7 appeal documents answer that. As for the 3rd point, we're not talking about the one-on-one that everyone had as individuals, but instead the Summary Report meeting on page 2, and the other call (with regards to the section 3.7 appeal, immediately after the only call I had with Heather). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:44 AM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Further for the record—
Of course the “we” in the December 21st email referred to Petter and I. It was the eve of the end of year holidays and our primary motivation as co-chairs was to protect George’s rights while his appeal remained pending. We had one view of how to proceed, he had a different view and had filed his appeal in his pursuit of it, and there was no clear or agreed upon way forward for the WG once he rejected our counteroffer. It was also our expectation that his appeal would be ruled upon in a matter of weeks, not months. In any event, I do not believe there was any objection to our announcement, noting that we expected there to be objection from George if we attempted to move forward before his appeal was resolved. I once again categorically reject George’s allegation that the co-chairs attempted to manipulate the WG process or outcome. Proposing to poll the full membership of the WG to initiate the consensus call process cannot fairly be viewed as manipulation. At every stage of our activities we consulted with support staff to confirm that our interpretation of the WG Guidelines was reasonable and within the scope of our discretion. The co-chairs did not speak together with Susan together or in any official capacity during her “office hours”. I spoke with her one-on-one (with staff taking notes) in my individual capacity, with the expectation that she would accord my views no more or less weight than those of any other WG members who took the opportunity to engage in dialogue with her. If there is a recording and/or transcript of the call that Petter and I held with Susan, Heather, and support staff to discuss the draft proposal for moving forward then I certainly have no objection to public release.
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: George Kirikos [mailto:icann@leap.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 9:06 AM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> Cc: gpmgroup@gmail.com; Donna.Austin@team.neustar; haforrestesq@gmail.com; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group)
Hi folks,
Phil's email is misleading and self-serving, attempting to shift the blame for lack of meetings to me. Go back to the mailing list archives and it's very clear exactly who blocked further meetings within the working group --- the co-chairs themselves, by their unilateral decision of December 21:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001024.html
"Until we receive further direction from the Council, we will not be scheduling any further meetings for this Working Group or launching a poll and subsequent consensus call process."
"We" in this case means "Phil and Petter". It was their choice, and their choice alone, to halt all the meetings since late December. You can read the entire email archive for the timeline of what led up to that email.
As for their "too little, too late offer" (after seeing the high quality of the Section 3.7 appeal, that also sought a replacement for the co-chairs, so that the process could not be further manipulated) to rescind holding an anonymous poll -- that was rejected for valid reasons, namely that any poll at that time was inconsistent with the working group guidelines, and was inconsistent with what was on the table in the prior discussions. This was discussed before, at:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-February/001086.html
I assume the most recent call between the co-chairs, Heather and Susan is recorded (mentioned on page 2 of the Summary Report) is recorded, for transparency, as required by the Working Group guidelines. I'd like to listen to it. Please post it to the Wiki. The February 20,
2018 Section 3.7 call between myself, Paul T, Susan and Heather was
posted:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/2018-02-20+Discussion+Call
but the recording/transcript of the subsequent meeting between the co-chairs and Heather et al regarding the 3.7 appeal has never been posted on the wiki. That should be posted too, so we can transparently determine exactly what's happening.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 8:18 AM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Paul:
For the record, and in regard to this –
The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to
discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue
level but the fact that working group officers can block its
discussion for months and months on end.
The discussion within the WG was not blocked by the co-chairs. It was
blocked because George filed a section 3.7 Appeal at the point in time
when the co-chairs wished to initiate the consensus call process. The
co-chairs later offered to rescind holding an anonymous poll of the
full WG but George rejected that approach and continued his appeal. So
far as I am aware you supported George in these actions.
Other than speaking with Susan in their individual capacity as WG
members the co-chairs had no control over the content of her report.
Speaking only for myself, I do not agree with your characterization of
the Swaine memo and believe it was highly relevant to the central
issue before the WG.
Philip
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, April 19, 2018 5:01 AM
To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>
Cc: Donna.Austin@team.neustar; Heather Forrest
<haforrestesq@gmail.com>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org;
rafik.dammak@gmail.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison
Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development
Process Working
Group)
Dear ICANN,
I agree with George, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the
call later today as I have another meeting half way across the country
which clashes with your call. I will listen to the call afterwards and
submit any comments to the email list, sorry for any inconvenience.
Please accept my apologies
Briefly, I would also like to point out:
The IGO's have accepted the principle of coexistence and as they are
initiating the proceedings they have no immunity rights whatsoever in
either the initial action or any follow on proceedings. This is an
incredibly simple legal principle and I can not find ANY jurisdiction
in the world on ANY matter not just domain names where an IGO would be entitled to do so.
The matter is only confused because the Swaine reasoning looked at the
case where others are initiating an action against the IGOs i.e. a
trademark owner looking to seize an IGO's asset. Clearly the expert
report is not relevant to the case the working group is considering
where the IGO's are initiating proceedings.
The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to
discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue
level but the fact that working group officers can block its
discussion for months and months on end. I also note with some dismay
that only 2 people in the private office sessions said they were not
prepared to accept any other option than option 3 - the 2 co-chairs preferred option.
We have an opportunity in this working group to set an example to the
RPM working group using any IGO cases to show how UDRP can be easily
improved for all parties in a way that does not tilt the balance in
either side's favour but just improves process and reduces costs for
all parties and meets the GAC's advice.
It really is incredibly easy - Free private mediation and a separate
(voluntary for registrants) arbitration track. If you want more
registrants to CHOOSE arbitration simply make it cheaper, faster and
less risky (name
only) than the judicial route. This could be sorted in a handful of
meetings and no interest group has lost anything!
Yours sincerely,
Paul.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:38 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
With regards to the Summary Report which is to be discussed tomorrow,
there are several parts of it that I disagree with, which I'll discuss
orally tomorrow during our call. However, some parts deserve a written
response, given that they contain supporting links (and the WebEx
interface really sucks, compared to Adobe Connect) so it's best to
post them in advance of the call.
1. On page 2, it's asserted that "the number of active participants is
extremely low" (it's also repeated on page 3, i.e. "small number of
participants' views"). However, that's not consistent with the facts.
For example, the IRTP-D PDP, the most recently completed GNSO PDP
according to:
has its attendance logs at:
If one adds up the "total attended" column, and divide it by the total
number of meetings, one obtains the average attendance per meeting:
Sum of total attended column = 553
Total meetings = 56
Average = 9.88 per meeting
It is of note that both the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board adopted
their recommendations:
Now, let's compare this to the IGO PDP and its attendance records:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Attendance+Records
Sum of total attended column = 711
Total meetings = 71
Average = 10.01 per meeting
So, there has actually been HIGHER average attendance (10.01 vs 9.88
per meeting) in this IGO PDP, compared to the IRTP-D whose work was
successfully completed.
2. On page 3, it's claimed that adoption of Option 4 "will require a
Charter amendment" for that other PDP." I'm not convinced that that's
a requirement. The RPM PDP charter is at:
https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+Charter?preview=3D
/5872= 9944/58730036/Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final.pdf
and states on page 3 of the charter that:
"(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts In the course of its
work, the Working Group should monitor the progress of and, where
appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN groups that are working on
topics that may overlap with or ***otherwise provide useful input to
this PDP.*** ....
In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into
consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT
Review, and ***any other relevant GNSO policy development***"
(emphasis added)
So, I think this situation was already covered by the RPM PDP's
current charter, and doesn't need an amendment.
As I mentioned earlier, there are other parts of the Summary Report I
have concerns about, but I'll save them for tomorrow's call, as they
don't require any links/quotes.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP
Working Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan
mentions in her
10
April email (below). You should already have received the calendar
invitation and call details for the next Working Group call,
currently scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of
1600 UTC. Susan will be on the call to discuss the report and
proposed next steps with everyone.
Thanks and cheers
Mary & Steve
From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26
To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>
Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, Mary Wong
<mary.wong@icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process
Working Group
Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working
Group members,
I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this
Working Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process
that was set out in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during
ICANN61 and following.
As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a
report for the Working Group on the input received at and since
ICANN61, with recommendations on next steps from me and Heather
Forrest, the GNSO Chair.
We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this
week, for discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual
time next Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to
present a summary of the report and its recommendations, and answer
questions from WG members.
An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly.
Bear in mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate
arrangements will be made to support our call.
In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide
me with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of
the group on this challenging policy area.
Kind regards,
Susan Kawaguchi
Councilor for the Business Constituency
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org
Apologies for misstating the timing of the co-chairs' counteroffer and its rejection. The essential point remains that we suspended WG meetings to preserve the status quo while the appeal was pending. 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: George Kirikos [mailto:icann@leap.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 11:54 AM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> Cc: gpmgroup@gmail.com; Donna.Austin@team.neustar; haforrestesq@gmail.com; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group) The first point in your email is clearly wrong, Phil. Your rejected "counter offer" wasn't in December, it was in February 2018! https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-February/001079.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-February/001080.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-February/001084.html etc. As for the 2nd point, the Section 3.7 appeal documents answer that. As for the 3rd point, we're not talking about the one-on-one that everyone had as individuals, but instead the Summary Report meeting on page 2, and the other call (with regards to the section 3.7 appeal, immediately after the only call I had with Heather). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 11:44 AM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Further for the record—
Of course the “we” in the December 21st email referred to Petter and I. It was the eve of the end of year holidays and our primary motivation as co-chairs was to protect George’s rights while his appeal remained pending. We had one view of how to proceed, he had a different view and had filed his appeal in his pursuit of it, and there was no clear or agreed upon way forward for the WG once he rejected our counteroffer. It was also our expectation that his appeal would be ruled upon in a matter of weeks, not months. In any event, I do not believe there was any objection to our announcement, noting that we expected there to be objection from George if we attempted to move forward before his appeal was resolved. I once again categorically reject George’s allegation that the co-chairs attempted to manipulate the WG process or outcome. Proposing to poll the full membership of the WG to initiate the consensus call process cannot fairly be viewed as manipulation. At every stage of our activities we consulted with support staff to confirm that our interpretation of the WG Guidelines was reasonable and within the scope of our discretion. The co-chairs did not speak together with Susan together or in any official capacity during her “office hours”. I spoke with her one-on-one (with staff taking notes) in my individual capacity, with the expectation that she would accord my views no more or less weight than those of any other WG members who took the opportunity to engage in dialogue with her. If there is a recording and/or transcript of the call that Petter and I held with Susan, Heather, and support staff to discuss the draft proposal for moving forward then I certainly have no objection to public release.
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: George Kirikos [mailto:icann@leap.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 9:06 AM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> Cc: gpmgroup@gmail.com; Donna.Austin@team.neustar; haforrestesq@gmail.com; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group)
Hi folks,
Phil's email is misleading and self-serving, attempting to shift the blame for lack of meetings to me. Go back to the mailing list archives and it's very clear exactly who blocked further meetings within the working group --- the co-chairs themselves, by their unilateral decision of December 21:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001024. html
"Until we receive further direction from the Council, we will not be scheduling any further meetings for this Working Group or launching a poll and subsequent consensus call process."
"We" in this case means "Phil and Petter". It was their choice, and their choice alone, to halt all the meetings since late December. You can read the entire email archive for the timeline of what led up to that email.
As for their "too little, too late offer" (after seeing the high quality of the Section 3.7 appeal, that also sought a replacement for the co-chairs, so that the process could not be further manipulated) to rescind holding an anonymous poll -- that was rejected for valid reasons, namely that any poll at that time was inconsistent with the working group guidelines, and was inconsistent with what was on the table in the prior discussions. This was discussed before, at:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-February/001086. html
I assume the most recent call between the co-chairs, Heather and Susan is recorded (mentioned on page 2 of the Summary Report) is recorded, for transparency, as required by the Working Group guidelines. I'd like to listen to it. Please post it to the Wiki. The February 20,
2018 Section 3.7 call between myself, Paul T, Susan and Heather was
posted:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/2018-02-20+Discussion +Call
but the recording/transcript of the subsequent meeting between the co-chairs and Heather et al regarding the 3.7 appeal has never been posted on the wiki. That should be posted too, so we can transparently determine exactly what's happening.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 8:18 AM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Paul:
For the record, and in regard to this –
The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to
discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue
level but the fact that working group officers can block its
discussion for months and months on end.
The discussion within the WG was not blocked by the co-chairs. It was
blocked because George filed a section 3.7 Appeal at the point in time
when the co-chairs wished to initiate the consensus call process. The
co-chairs later offered to rescind holding an anonymous poll of the
full WG but George rejected that approach and continued his appeal. So
far as I am aware you supported George in these actions.
Other than speaking with Susan in their individual capacity as WG
members the co-chairs had no control over the content of her report.
Speaking only for myself, I do not agree with your characterization of
the Swaine memo and believe it was highly relevant to the central
issue before the WG.
Philip
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, April 19, 2018 5:01 AM
To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>
Cc: Donna.Austin@team.neustar; Heather Forrest
<haforrestesq@gmail.com>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org;
rafik.dammak@gmail.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison
Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development
Process Working
Group)
Dear ICANN,
I agree with George, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the
call later today as I have another meeting half way across the country
which clashes with your call. I will listen to the call afterwards and
submit any comments to the email list, sorry for any inconvenience.
Please accept my apologies
Briefly, I would also like to point out:
The IGO's have accepted the principle of coexistence and as they are
initiating the proceedings they have no immunity rights whatsoever in
either the initial action or any follow on proceedings. This is an
incredibly simple legal principle and I can not find ANY jurisdiction
in the world on ANY matter not just domain names where an IGO would be entitled to do so.
The matter is only confused because the Swaine reasoning looked at the
case where others are initiating an action against the IGOs i.e. a
trademark owner looking to seize an IGO's asset. Clearly the expert
report is not relevant to the case the working group is considering
where the IGO's are initiating proceedings.
The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to
discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue
level but the fact that working group officers can block its
discussion for months and months on end. I also note with some dismay
that only 2 people in the private office sessions said they were not
prepared to accept any other option than option 3 - the 2 co-chairs preferred option.
We have an opportunity in this working group to set an example to the
RPM working group using any IGO cases to show how UDRP can be easily
improved for all parties in a way that does not tilt the balance in
either side's favour but just improves process and reduces costs for
all parties and meets the GAC's advice.
It really is incredibly easy - Free private mediation and a separate
(voluntary for registrants) arbitration track. If you want more
registrants to CHOOSE arbitration simply make it cheaper, faster and
less risky (name
only) than the judicial route. This could be sorted in a handful of
meetings and no interest group has lost anything!
Yours sincerely,
Paul.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:38 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
With regards to the Summary Report which is to be discussed tomorrow,
there are several parts of it that I disagree with, which I'll discuss
orally tomorrow during our call. However, some parts deserve a written
response, given that they contain supporting links (and the WebEx
interface really sucks, compared to Adobe Connect) so it's best to
post them in advance of the call.
1. On page 2, it's asserted that "the number of active participants is
extremely low" (it's also repeated on page 3, i.e. "small number of
participants' views"). However, that's not consistent with the facts.
For example, the IRTP-D PDP, the most recently completed GNSO PDP
according to:
has its attendance logs at:
If one adds up the "total attended" column, and divide it by the total
number of meetings, one obtains the average attendance per meeting:
Sum of total attended column = 553
Total meetings = 56
Average = 9.88 per meeting
It is of note that both the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board adopted
their recommendations:
Now, let's compare this to the IGO PDP and its attendance records:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Attendance+Records
Sum of total attended column = 711
Total meetings = 71
Average = 10.01 per meeting
So, there has actually been HIGHER average attendance (10.01 vs 9.88
per meeting) in this IGO PDP, compared to the IRTP-D whose work was
successfully completed.
2. On page 3, it's claimed that adoption of Option 4 "will require a
Charter amendment" for that other PDP." I'm not convinced that that's
a requirement. The RPM PDP charter is at:
https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+Charter?preview=3 D
/5872= 9944/58730036/Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final.pdf
and states on page 3 of the charter that:
"(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts In the course of its
work, the Working Group should monitor the progress of and, where
appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN groups that are working on
topics that may overlap with or ***otherwise provide useful input to
this PDP.*** ....
In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into
consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT
Review, and ***any other relevant GNSO policy development***"
(emphasis added)
So, I think this situation was already covered by the RPM PDP's
current charter, and doesn't need an amendment.
As I mentioned earlier, there are other parts of the Summary Report I
have concerns about, but I'll save them for tomorrow's call, as they
don't require any links/quotes.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP
Working Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan
mentions in her
10
April email (below). You should already have received the calendar
invitation and call details for the next Working Group call,
currently scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of
1600 UTC. Susan will be on the call to discuss the report and
proposed next steps with everyone.
Thanks and cheers
Mary & Steve
From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26
To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>
Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, Mary Wong
<mary.wong@icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process
Working Group
Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working
Group members,
I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this
Working Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process
that was set out in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during
ICANN61 and following.
As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a
report for the Working Group on the input received at and since
ICANN61, with recommendations on next steps from me and Heather
Forrest, the GNSO Chair.
We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this
week, for discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual
time next Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to
present a summary of the report and its recommendations, and answer
questions from WG members.
An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly.
Bear in mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate
arrangements will be made to support our call.
In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide
me with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of
the group on this challenging policy area.
Kind regards,
Susan Kawaguchi
Councilor for the Business Constituency
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org
Dear George, The meeting between Heather, Susan, Philip, and Petter, as mentioned on page 2 of the Summary Report, was unfortunately not recorded. I would note though that the nature of the call was intended as a courtesy to the co-chairs, where they were informed by Heather and Susan of their suggested approach for next steps, as will be discussed with the WG on this upcoming call. Best, Steve On 4/19/18, 6:06 AM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote: Hi folks, Phil's email is misleading and self-serving, attempting to shift the blame for lack of meetings to me. Go back to the mailing list archives and it's very clear exactly who blocked further meetings within the working group --- the co-chairs themselves, by their unilateral decision of December 21: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/001024.html "Until we receive further direction from the Council, we will not be scheduling any further meetings for this Working Group or launching a poll and subsequent consensus call process." "We" in this case means "Phil and Petter". It was their choice, and their choice alone, to halt all the meetings since late December. You can read the entire email archive for the timeline of what led up to that email. As for their "too little, too late offer" (after seeing the high quality of the Section 3.7 appeal, that also sought a replacement for the co-chairs, so that the process could not be further manipulated) to rescind holding an anonymous poll -- that was rejected for valid reasons, namely that any poll at that time was inconsistent with the working group guidelines, and was inconsistent with what was on the table in the prior discussions. This was discussed before, at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-February/001086.html I assume the most recent call between the co-chairs, Heather and Susan is recorded (mentioned on page 2 of the Summary Report) is recorded, for transparency, as required by the Working Group guidelines. I'd like to listen to it. Please post it to the Wiki. The February 20, 2018 Section 3.7 call between myself, Paul T, Susan and Heather was posted: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis... but the recording/transcript of the subsequent meeting between the co-chairs and Heather et al regarding the 3.7 appeal has never been posted on the wiki. That should be posted too, so we can transparently determine exactly what's happening. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 8:18 AM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote: > Paul: > > > > For the record, and in regard to this – > > The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss > it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the > fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and > months on end. > > > > The discussion within the WG was not blocked by the co-chairs. It was > blocked because George filed a section 3.7 Appeal at the point in time when > the co-chairs wished to initiate the consensus call process. The co-chairs > later offered to rescind holding an anonymous poll of the full WG but George > rejected that approach and continued his appeal. So far as I am aware you > supported George in these actions. > > > > Other than speaking with Susan in their individual capacity as WG members > the co-chairs had no control over the content of her report. > > > > Speaking only for myself, I do not agree with your characterization of the > Swaine memo and believe it was highly relevant to the central issue before > the WG. > > > > Philip > > > > 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, April 19, 2018 5:01 AM > To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> > Cc: Donna.Austin@team.neustar; Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>; > gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary > Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working > Group) > > > > Dear ICANN, > > > > I agree with George, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the call > later today as I have another meeting half way across the country which > clashes with your call. I will listen to the call afterwards and submit any > comments to the email list, sorry for any inconvenience. Please accept my > apologies > > Briefly, I would also like to point out: > > The IGO's have accepted the principle of coexistence and as they are > initiating the proceedings they have no immunity rights whatsoever in either > the initial action or any follow on proceedings. This is an incredibly > simple legal principle and I can not find ANY jurisdiction in the world on > ANY matter not just domain names where an IGO would be entitled to do so. > > The matter is only confused because the Swaine reasoning looked at the case > where others are initiating an action against the IGOs i.e. a trademark > owner looking to seize an IGO's asset. Clearly the expert report is not > relevant to the case the working group is considering where the IGO's are > initiating proceedings. > > The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss > it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the > fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and > months on end. I also note with some dismay that only 2 people in the > private office sessions said they were not prepared to accept any other > option than option 3 - the 2 co-chairs preferred option. > > We have an opportunity in this working group to set an example to the RPM > working group using any IGO cases to show how UDRP can be easily improved > for all parties in a way that does not tilt the balance in either side's > favour but just improves process and reduces costs for all parties and meets > the GAC's advice. > > > > It really is incredibly easy - Free private mediation and a separate > (voluntary for registrants) arbitration track. If you want more registrants > to CHOOSE arbitration simply make it cheaper, faster and less risky (name > only) than the judicial route. This could be sorted in a handful of meetings > and no interest group has lost anything! > > > > Yours sincerely, > > Paul. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:38 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: > > Hi folks, > > With regards to the Summary Report which is to be discussed tomorrow, > there are several parts of it that I disagree with, which I'll discuss > orally tomorrow during our call. However, some parts deserve a written > response, given that they contain supporting links (and the WebEx > interface really sucks, compared to Adobe Connect) so it's best to > post them in advance of the call. > > 1. On page 2, it's asserted that "the number of active participants is > extremely low" (it's also repeated on page 3, i.e. "small number of > participants' views"). However, that's not consistent with the facts. > For example, the IRTP-D PDP, the most recently completed GNSO PDP > according to: > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group... > > has its attendance logs at: > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis... > > If one adds up the "total attended" column, and divide it by the total > number of meetings, one obtains the average attendance per meeting: > > Sum of total attended column = 553 > Total meetings = 56 > Average = 9.88 per meeting > > It is of note that both the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board adopted > their recommendations: > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group... > > Now, let's compare this to the IGO PDP and its attendance records: > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis... > > Sum of total attended column = 711 > Total meetings = 71 > Average = 10.01 per meeting > > So, there has actually been HIGHER average attendance (10.01 vs 9.88 > per meeting) in this IGO PDP, compared to the IRTP-D whose work was > successfully completed. > > 2. On page 3, it's claimed that adoption of Option 4 "will require a > Charter amendment" for that other PDP." I'm not convinced that that's > a requirement. The RPM PDP charter is at: > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis... > 9944/58730036/Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final.pdf > > and states on page 3 of the charter that: > > "(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts > In the course of its work, the Working Group should monitor the > progress of and, where appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN > groups that are working on topics that may overlap with or > ***otherwise provide useful input to this PDP.*** > .... > In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into > consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT > Review, and ***any other relevant GNSO policy development***" > > (emphasis added) > > So, I think this situation was already covered by the RPM PDP's > current charter, and doesn't need an amendment. > > As I mentioned earlier, there are other parts of the Summary Report I > have concerns about, but I'll save them for tomorrow's call, as they > don't require any links/quotes. > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... > > > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP Working >> Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan mentions in her >> 10 >> April email (below). You should already have received the calendar >> invitation and call details for the next Working Group call, currently >> scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of 1600 UTC. Susan >> will be on the call to discuss the report and proposed next steps with >> everyone. >> >> >> >> Thanks and cheers >> >> Mary & Steve >> >> >> >> From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com> >> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26 >> To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> >> Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, Mary Wong >> <mary.wong@icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> >> Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working >> Group >> >> >> >> Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group >> members, >> >> >> >> I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this Working >> Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process that was set >> out >> in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during ICANN61 and >> following. >> >> >> >> As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a report >> for >> the Working Group on the input received at and since ICANN61, with >> recommendations on next steps from me and Heather Forrest, the GNSO Chair. >> We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this week, >> for >> discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual time next >> Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to present a summary >> of >> the report and its recommendations, and answer questions from WG members. >> >> >> >> An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly. Bear in >> mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate arrangements will be >> made to support our call. >> >> >> >> In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide me >> with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of the group >> on this challenging policy area. >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> >> Susan Kawaguchi >> >> Councilor for the Business Constituency >> >> >> >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
Dear Philip, OK lets settle this once and for all: Show me examples of where an IGO is entitled to immunity after initiating proceedings. In either the initial proceedings or any follow-on proceedings? Any jurisdiction will do, any matter will do...... If you can not then Swaine is irrelevant to what the working group is considering. Yours sincerely, Paul. On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Paul:
For the record, and in regard to this –
The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end.
The discussion within the WG was not blocked by the co-chairs. It was blocked because George filed a section 3.7 Appeal at the point in time when the co-chairs wished to initiate the consensus call process. The co-chairs later offered to rescind holding an anonymous poll of the full WG but George rejected that approach and continued his appeal. So far as I am aware you supported George in these actions.
Other than speaking with Susan in their individual capacity as WG members the co-chairs had no control over the content of her report.
Speaking only for myself, I do not agree with your characterization of the Swaine memo and believe it was highly relevant to the central issue before the WG.
Philip
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190&entry=g...> 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, April 19, 2018 5:01 AM *To:* George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> *Cc:* Donna.Austin@team.neustar; Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group)
Dear ICANN,
I agree with George, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the call later today as I have another meeting half way across the country which clashes with your call. I will listen to the call afterwards and submit any comments to the email list, sorry for any inconvenience. Please accept my apologies
Briefly, I would also like to point out:
The IGO's have accepted the principle of coexistence and as they are initiating the proceedings they have no immunity rights whatsoever in either the initial action or any follow on proceedings. This is an incredibly simple legal principle and I can not find ANY jurisdiction in the world on ANY matter not just domain names where an IGO would be entitled to do so.
The matter is only confused because the Swaine reasoning looked at the case where others are initiating an action against the IGOs i.e. a trademark owner looking to seize an IGO's asset. Clearly the expert report is not relevant to the case the working group is considering where the IGO's are initiating proceedings.
The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end. I also note with some dismay that only 2 people in the private office sessions said they were not prepared to accept any other option than option 3 - the 2 co-chairs preferred option.
We have an opportunity in this working group to set an example to the RPM working group using any IGO cases to show how UDRP can be easily improved for all parties in a way that does not tilt the balance in either side's favour but just improves process and reduces costs for all parties and meets the GAC's advice.
It really is incredibly easy - Free private mediation and a separate (voluntary for registrants) arbitration track. If you want more registrants to CHOOSE arbitration simply make it cheaper, faster and less risky (name only) than the judicial route. This could be sorted in a handful of meetings and no interest group has lost anything!
Yours sincerely,
Paul.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:38 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
With regards to the Summary Report which is to be discussed tomorrow, there are several parts of it that I disagree with, which I'll discuss orally tomorrow during our call. However, some parts deserve a written response, given that they contain supporting links (and the WebEx interface really sucks, compared to Adobe Connect) so it's best to post them in advance of the call.
1. On page 2, it's asserted that "the number of active participants is extremely low" (it's also repeated on page 3, i.e. "small number of participants' views"). However, that's not consistent with the facts. For example, the IRTP-D PDP, the most recently completed GNSO PDP according to:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive
has its attendance logs at:
https://community.icann.org/display/ITPIPDWG/Attendance+Log
If one adds up the "total attended" column, and divide it by the total number of meetings, one obtains the average attendance per meeting:
Sum of total attended column = 553 Total meetings = 56 Average = 9.88 per meeting
It is of note that both the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board adopted their recommendations:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-d
Now, let's compare this to the IGO PDP and its attendance records:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Attendance+Records
Sum of total attended column = 711 Total meetings = 71 Average = 10.01 per meeting
So, there has actually been HIGHER average attendance (10.01 vs 9.88 per meeting) in this IGO PDP, compared to the IRTP-D whose work was successfully completed.
2. On page 3, it's claimed that adoption of Option 4 "will require a Charter amendment" for that other PDP." I'm not convinced that that's a requirement. The RPM PDP charter is at:
https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+ Charter?preview=3D/5872= 9944/58730036/Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final.pdf <https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+Charter?preview=3D/5872=...>
and states on page 3 of the charter that:
"(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts In the course of its work, the Working Group should monitor the progress of and, where appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN groups that are working on topics that may overlap with or ***otherwise provide useful input to this PDP.*** .... In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT Review, and ***any other relevant GNSO policy development***"
(emphasis added)
So, I think this situation was already covered by the RPM PDP's current charter, and doesn't need an amendment.
As I mentioned earlier, there are other parts of the Summary Report I have concerns about, but I'll save them for tomorrow's call, as they don't require any links/quotes.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP Working Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan mentions in her 10 April email (below). You should already have received the calendar invitation and call details for the next Working Group call, currently scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of 1600 UTC. Susan will be on the call to discuss the report and proposed next steps with everyone.
Thanks and cheers
Mary & Steve
From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group
Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group members,
I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process that was set out in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during ICANN61 and following.
As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a report for the Working Group on the input received at and since ICANN61, with recommendations on next steps from me and Heather Forrest, the GNSO Chair. We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this week, for discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual time next Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to present a summary of the report and its recommendations, and answer questions from WG members.
An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly. Bear in mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate arrangements will be made to support our call.
In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide me with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of the group on this challenging policy area.
Kind regards,
Susan Kawaguchi
Councilor for the Business Constituency
_______________________________________________ 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
Paul: Responding in an individual capacity -- Professor Swaine’s memo is an excellent explanation of the accepted scope of IGO judicial immunity and the varied analytical approaches that national courts take in determining the validity of IGO immunity defenses. I remain proud that we solicited this expert input on the central legal issue before the WG, and appreciative that ICANN funded the research. I am sure it will be of substantial assistance to whatever decisional body determines how best to resolve the inherent conflict between statutory rights of domain registrants and the desire of IGOs to have a means of addressing cybersquatting that does not require full surrender of valid claims to judicial immunity as a condition of bringing an action. Philip 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: Paul Tattersfield [mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 7:32 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> Cc: icann@leap.com; Donna.Austin@team.neustar; haforrestesq@gmail.com; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group) Dear Philip, OK lets settle this once and for all: Show me examples of where an IGO is entitled to immunity after initiating proceedings. In either the initial proceedings or any follow-on proceedings? Any jurisdiction will do, any matter will do...... If you can not then Swaine is irrelevant to what the working group is considering. Yours sincerely, Paul. On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> wrote: Paul: For the record, and in regard to this – The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end. The discussion within the WG was not blocked by the co-chairs. It was blocked because George filed a section 3.7 Appeal at the point in time when the co-chairs wished to initiate the consensus call process. The co-chairs later offered to rescind holding an anonymous poll of the full WG but George rejected that approach and continued his appeal. So far as I am aware you supported George in these actions. Other than speaking with Susan in their individual capacity as WG members the co-chairs had no control over the content of her report. Speaking only for myself, I do not agree with your characterization of the Swaine memo and believe it was highly relevant to the central issue before the WG. Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way<https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190&entry=g...> 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<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Paul Tattersfield Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 5:01 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> Cc: Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>; Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>; rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group) Dear ICANN, I agree with George, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the call later today as I have another meeting half way across the country which clashes with your call. I will listen to the call afterwards and submit any comments to the email list, sorry for any inconvenience. Please accept my apologies Briefly, I would also like to point out: The IGO's have accepted the principle of coexistence and as they are initiating the proceedings they have no immunity rights whatsoever in either the initial action or any follow on proceedings. This is an incredibly simple legal principle and I can not find ANY jurisdiction in the world on ANY matter not just domain names where an IGO would be entitled to do so. The matter is only confused because the Swaine reasoning looked at the case where others are initiating an action against the IGOs i.e. a trademark owner looking to seize an IGO's asset. Clearly the expert report is not relevant to the case the working group is considering where the IGO's are initiating proceedings. The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end. I also note with some dismay that only 2 people in the private office sessions said they were not prepared to accept any other option than option 3 - the 2 co-chairs preferred option. We have an opportunity in this working group to set an example to the RPM working group using any IGO cases to show how UDRP can be easily improved for all parties in a way that does not tilt the balance in either side's favour but just improves process and reduces costs for all parties and meets the GAC's advice. It really is incredibly easy - Free private mediation and a separate (voluntary for registrants) arbitration track. If you want more registrants to CHOOSE arbitration simply make it cheaper, faster and less risky (name only) than the judicial route. This could be sorted in a handful of meetings and no interest group has lost anything! Yours sincerely, Paul. On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:38 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Hi folks, With regards to the Summary Report which is to be discussed tomorrow, there are several parts of it that I disagree with, which I'll discuss orally tomorrow during our call. However, some parts deserve a written response, given that they contain supporting links (and the WebEx interface really sucks, compared to Adobe Connect) so it's best to post them in advance of the call. 1. On page 2, it's asserted that "the number of active participants is extremely low" (it's also repeated on page 3, i.e. "small number of participants' views"). However, that's not consistent with the facts. For example, the IRTP-D PDP, the most recently completed GNSO PDP according to: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive has its attendance logs at: https://community.icann.org/display/ITPIPDWG/Attendance+Log If one adds up the "total attended" column, and divide it by the total number of meetings, one obtains the average attendance per meeting: Sum of total attended column = 553 Total meetings = 56 Average = 9.88 per meeting It is of note that both the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board adopted their recommendations: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-d Now, let's compare this to the IGO PDP and its attendance records: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Attendance+Records Sum of total attended column = 711 Total meetings = 71 Average = 10.01 per meeting So, there has actually been HIGHER average attendance (10.01 vs 9.88 per meeting) in this IGO PDP, compared to the IRTP-D whose work was successfully completed. 2. On page 3, it's claimed that adoption of Option 4 "will require a Charter amendment" for that other PDP." I'm not convinced that that's a requirement. The RPM PDP charter is at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+Charter?preview=3D/5872= 9944/58730036/Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final.pdf and states on page 3 of the charter that: "(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts In the course of its work, the Working Group should monitor the progress of and, where appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN groups that are working on topics that may overlap with or ***otherwise provide useful input to this PDP.*** .... In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT Review, and ***any other relevant GNSO policy development***" (emphasis added) So, I think this situation was already covered by the RPM PDP's current charter, and doesn't need an amendment. As I mentioned earlier, there are other parts of the Summary Report I have concerns about, but I'll save them for tomorrow's call, as they don't require any links/quotes. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: > Dear all, > > > > On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP Working > Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan mentions in her 10 > April email (below). You should already have received the calendar > invitation and call details for the next Working Group call, currently > scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of 1600 UTC. Susan > will be on the call to discuss the report and proposed next steps with > everyone. > > > > Thanks and cheers > > Mary & Steve > > > > From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com<mailto:susankpolicy@gmail.com>> > Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26 > To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> > Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>>, Mary Wong > <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org<mailto:steve.chan@icann.org>> > Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working > Group > > > > Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group > members, > > > > I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this Working > Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process that was set out > in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during ICANN61 and following. > > > > As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a report for > the Working Group on the input received at and since ICANN61, with > recommendations on next steps from me and Heather Forrest, the GNSO Chair. > We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this week, for > discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual time next > Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to present a summary of > the report and its recommendations, and answer questions from WG members. > > > > An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly. Bear in > mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate arrangements will be > made to support our call. > > > > In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide me > with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of the group > on this challenging policy area. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Susan Kawaguchi > > Councilor for the Business Constituency > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
Hi Phil, In case you thought it went unnoticed, you didn't actually provide the example that Paul Tattersfield's sought. Paul sought facts, but you provided no facts. But, thank you for proving you received and read his email, but had no answer to it ---- attempting to distract folks with a non-answer to a simple and straight-forward question is yet another example of behaviour that is fully consistent with the Section 3.7 appeal I filed, that questioned your leadership of this PDP. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Paul:
Responding in an individual capacity -- Professor Swaine’s memo is an excellent explanation of the accepted scope of IGO judicial immunity and the varied analytical approaches that national courts take in determining the validity of IGO immunity defenses. I remain proud that we solicited this expert input on the central legal issue before the WG, and appreciative that ICANN funded the research.
I am sure it will be of substantial assistance to whatever decisional body determines how best to resolve the inherent conflict between statutory rights of domain registrants and the desire of IGOs to have a means of addressing cybersquatting that does not require full surrender of valid claims to judicial immunity as a condition of bringing an action.
Philip
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: Paul Tattersfield [mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 7:32 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> Cc: icann@leap.com; Donna.Austin@team.neustar; haforrestesq@gmail.com; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group)
Dear Philip,
OK lets settle this once and for all:
Show me examples of where an IGO is entitled to immunity after initiating proceedings. In either the initial proceedings or any follow-on proceedings?
Any jurisdiction will do, any matter will do......
If you can not then Swaine is irrelevant to what the working group is considering.
Yours sincerely,
Paul.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Paul:
For the record, and in regard to this –
The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end.
The discussion within the WG was not blocked by the co-chairs. It was blocked because George filed a section 3.7 Appeal at the point in time when the co-chairs wished to initiate the consensus call process. The co-chairs later offered to rescind holding an anonymous poll of the full WG but George rejected that approach and continued his appeal. So far as I am aware you supported George in these actions.
Other than speaking with Susan in their individual capacity as WG members the co-chairs had no control over the content of her report.
Speaking only for myself, I do not agree with your characterization of the Swaine memo and believe it was highly relevant to the central issue before the WG.
Philip
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, April 19, 2018 5:01 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: Donna.Austin@team.neustar; Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group)
Dear ICANN,
I agree with George, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the call later today as I have another meeting half way across the country which clashes with your call. I will listen to the call afterwards and submit any comments to the email list, sorry for any inconvenience. Please accept my apologies
Briefly, I would also like to point out:
The IGO's have accepted the principle of coexistence and as they are initiating the proceedings they have no immunity rights whatsoever in either the initial action or any follow on proceedings. This is an incredibly simple legal principle and I can not find ANY jurisdiction in the world on ANY matter not just domain names where an IGO would be entitled to do so.
The matter is only confused because the Swaine reasoning looked at the case where others are initiating an action against the IGOs i.e. a trademark owner looking to seize an IGO's asset. Clearly the expert report is not relevant to the case the working group is considering where the IGO's are initiating proceedings.
The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end. I also note with some dismay that only 2 people in the private office sessions said they were not prepared to accept any other option than option 3 - the 2 co-chairs preferred option.
We have an opportunity in this working group to set an example to the RPM working group using any IGO cases to show how UDRP can be easily improved for all parties in a way that does not tilt the balance in either side's favour but just improves process and reduces costs for all parties and meets the GAC's advice.
It really is incredibly easy - Free private mediation and a separate (voluntary for registrants) arbitration track. If you want more registrants to CHOOSE arbitration simply make it cheaper, faster and less risky (name only) than the judicial route. This could be sorted in a handful of meetings and no interest group has lost anything!
Yours sincerely,
Paul.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:38 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
With regards to the Summary Report which is to be discussed tomorrow, there are several parts of it that I disagree with, which I'll discuss orally tomorrow during our call. However, some parts deserve a written response, given that they contain supporting links (and the WebEx interface really sucks, compared to Adobe Connect) so it's best to post them in advance of the call.
1. On page 2, it's asserted that "the number of active participants is extremely low" (it's also repeated on page 3, i.e. "small number of participants' views"). However, that's not consistent with the facts. For example, the IRTP-D PDP, the most recently completed GNSO PDP according to:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive
has its attendance logs at:
https://community.icann.org/display/ITPIPDWG/Attendance+Log
If one adds up the "total attended" column, and divide it by the total number of meetings, one obtains the average attendance per meeting:
Sum of total attended column = 553 Total meetings = 56 Average = 9.88 per meeting
It is of note that both the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board adopted their recommendations:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-d
Now, let's compare this to the IGO PDP and its attendance records:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Attendance+Records
Sum of total attended column = 711 Total meetings = 71 Average = 10.01 per meeting
So, there has actually been HIGHER average attendance (10.01 vs 9.88 per meeting) in this IGO PDP, compared to the IRTP-D whose work was successfully completed.
2. On page 3, it's claimed that adoption of Option 4 "will require a Charter amendment" for that other PDP." I'm not convinced that that's a requirement. The RPM PDP charter is at:
https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+Charter?preview=3D/5872= 9944/58730036/Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final.pdf
and states on page 3 of the charter that:
"(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts In the course of its work, the Working Group should monitor the progress of and, where appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN groups that are working on topics that may overlap with or ***otherwise provide useful input to this PDP.*** .... In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT Review, and ***any other relevant GNSO policy development***"
(emphasis added)
So, I think this situation was already covered by the RPM PDP's current charter, and doesn't need an amendment.
As I mentioned earlier, there are other parts of the Summary Report I have concerns about, but I'll save them for tomorrow's call, as they don't require any links/quotes.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP Working Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan mentions in her 10 April email (below). You should already have received the calendar invitation and call details for the next Working Group call, currently scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of 1600 UTC. Susan will be on the call to discuss the report and proposed next steps with everyone.
Thanks and cheers
Mary & Steve
From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group
Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group members,
I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process that was set out in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during ICANN61 and following.
As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a report for the Working Group on the input received at and since ICANN61, with recommendations on next steps from me and Heather Forrest, the GNSO Chair. We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this week, for discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual time next Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to present a summary of the report and its recommendations, and answer questions from WG members.
An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly. Bear in mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate arrangements will be made to support our call.
In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide me with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of the group on this challenging policy area.
Kind regards,
Susan Kawaguchi
Councilor for the Business Constituency
_______________________________________________ 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
George: I had no intent to distract anyone and doubt that others on this email list were distracted or failed to understand the import of my reply. My reply was in direct response to Paul's statement that " Swaine is irrelevant to what the working group is considering". I completely disagree for the reasons stated in that email. Paul's inquiry - " Show me examples of where an IGO is entitled to immunity after initiating proceedings" -- is imprecise as to what proceedings he is referring to. If it is judicial proceedings them of course an IGO's initiation of process indicates an implicit waiver of judicial immunity. But our WG was tasked with addressing IGO access to non-judicial proceedings, specifically the UDRP and URS. The fact is that GAC and IGOs have repeatedly taken the position that IGOs should not be required to waive judicial immunity as a pre-condition of accessing curative rights processes to address cybersquatting that can harm the public; and the ICANN Board has indicated a strong interest in satisfying their concerns, and is in fact required to consider consensus GAC advice. Policy recommendations that are supported by GNSO Council must subsequently be approved by the Board after consideration of relevant GAC advice. It is a fact that you and Paul have dismissed those GAC and IGO positions as irrelevant "political" considerations, just as you have viewed IGO immunity concerns as irrelevant and not worthy of consideration is shaping a policy response within the bounds of the WG Charter. The PDP process cannot work when WG members are unwilling to acknowledge any validity in alternative viewpoints and are unwilling to contemplate any compromise when rights conflict. And that is precisely why this WG has reached a dead end, and why I shall have no more to say on this subject since it is only a repletion of endlessly circular policy discussions that reached no pragmatic conclusion. So you can now have the last word, which I know is a high priority based on observation of your behavior. Philip 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: George Kirikos [mailto:icann@leap.com] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 11:34 AM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> Cc: gpmgroup@gmail.com; Donna.Austin@team.neustar; haforrestesq@gmail.com; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group) Hi Phil, In case you thought it went unnoticed, you didn't actually provide the example that Paul Tattersfield's sought. Paul sought facts, but you provided no facts. But, thank you for proving you received and read his email, but had no answer to it ---- attempting to distract folks with a non-answer to a simple and straight-forward question is yet another example of behaviour that is fully consistent with the Section 3.7 appeal I filed, that questioned your leadership of this PDP. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Paul:
Responding in an individual capacity -- Professor Swaine's memo is an excellent explanation of the accepted scope of IGO judicial immunity and the varied analytical approaches that national courts take in determining the validity of IGO immunity defenses. I remain proud that we solicited this expert input on the central legal issue before the WG, and appreciative that ICANN funded the research.
I am sure it will be of substantial assistance to whatever decisional body determines how best to resolve the inherent conflict between statutory rights of domain registrants and the desire of IGOs to have a means of addressing cybersquatting that does not require full surrender of valid claims to judicial immunity as a condition of bringing an action.
Philip
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: Paul Tattersfield [mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 7:32 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> Cc: icann@leap.com; Donna.Austin@team.neustar; haforrestesq@gmail.com; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group)
Dear Philip,
OK lets settle this once and for all:
Show me examples of where an IGO is entitled to immunity after initiating proceedings. In either the initial proceedings or any follow-on proceedings?
Any jurisdiction will do, any matter will do......
If you can not then Swaine is irrelevant to what the working group is considering.
Yours sincerely,
Paul.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Paul:
For the record, and in regard to this -
The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end.
The discussion within the WG was not blocked by the co-chairs. It was blocked because George filed a section 3.7 Appeal at the point in time when the co-chairs wished to initiate the consensus call process. The co-chairs later offered to rescind holding an anonymous poll of the full WG but George rejected that approach and continued his appeal. So far as I am aware you supported George in these actions.
Other than speaking with Susan in their individual capacity as WG members the co-chairs had no control over the content of her report.
Speaking only for myself, I do not agree with your characterization of the Swaine memo and believe it was highly relevant to the central issue before the WG.
Philip
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, April 19, 2018 5:01 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: Donna.Austin@team.neustar; Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group)
Dear ICANN,
I agree with George, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the call later today as I have another meeting half way across the country which clashes with your call. I will listen to the call afterwards and submit any comments to the email list, sorry for any inconvenience. Please accept my apologies
Briefly, I would also like to point out:
The IGO's have accepted the principle of coexistence and as they are initiating the proceedings they have no immunity rights whatsoever in either the initial action or any follow on proceedings. This is an incredibly simple legal principle and I can not find ANY jurisdiction in the world on ANY matter not just domain names where an IGO would be entitled to do so.
The matter is only confused because the Swaine reasoning looked at the case where others are initiating an action against the IGOs i.e. a trademark owner looking to seize an IGO's asset. Clearly the expert report is not relevant to the case the working group is considering where the IGO's are initiating proceedings.
The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end. I also note with some dismay that only 2 people in the private office sessions said they were not prepared to accept any other option than option 3 - the 2 co-chairs preferred option.
We have an opportunity in this working group to set an example to the RPM working group using any IGO cases to show how UDRP can be easily improved for all parties in a way that does not tilt the balance in either side's favour but just improves process and reduces costs for all parties and meets the GAC's advice.
It really is incredibly easy - Free private mediation and a separate (voluntary for registrants) arbitration track. If you want more registrants to CHOOSE arbitration simply make it cheaper, faster and less risky (name only) than the judicial route. This could be sorted in a handful of meetings and no interest group has lost anything!
Yours sincerely,
Paul.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:38 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
With regards to the Summary Report which is to be discussed tomorrow, there are several parts of it that I disagree with, which I'll discuss orally tomorrow during our call. However, some parts deserve a written response, given that they contain supporting links (and the WebEx interface really sucks, compared to Adobe Connect) so it's best to post them in advance of the call.
1. On page 2, it's asserted that "the number of active participants is extremely low" (it's also repeated on page 3, i.e. "small number of participants' views"). However, that's not consistent with the facts. For example, the IRTP-D PDP, the most recently completed GNSO PDP according to:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive
has its attendance logs at:
https://community.icann.org/display/ITPIPDWG/Attendance+Log
If one adds up the "total attended" column, and divide it by the total number of meetings, one obtains the average attendance per meeting:
Sum of total attended column = 553 Total meetings = 56 Average = 9.88 per meeting
It is of note that both the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board adopted their recommendations:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-d
Now, let's compare this to the IGO PDP and its attendance records:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Attendance+Records
Sum of total attended column = 711 Total meetings = 71 Average = 10.01 per meeting
So, there has actually been HIGHER average attendance (10.01 vs 9.88 per meeting) in this IGO PDP, compared to the IRTP-D whose work was successfully completed.
2. On page 3, it's claimed that adoption of Option 4 "will require a Charter amendment" for that other PDP." I'm not convinced that that's a requirement. The RPM PDP charter is at:
https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+Charter?preview=3D /5872= 9944/58730036/Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final.pdf
and states on page 3 of the charter that:
"(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts In the course of its work, the Working Group should monitor the progress of and, where appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN groups that are working on topics that may overlap with or ***otherwise provide useful input to this PDP.*** .... In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT Review, and ***any other relevant GNSO policy development***"
(emphasis added)
So, I think this situation was already covered by the RPM PDP's current charter, and doesn't need an amendment.
As I mentioned earlier, there are other parts of the Summary Report I have concerns about, but I'll save them for tomorrow's call, as they don't require any links/quotes.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP Working Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan mentions in her 10 April email (below). You should already have received the calendar invitation and call details for the next Working Group call, currently scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of 1600 UTC. Susan will be on the call to discuss the report and proposed next steps with everyone.
Thanks and cheers
Mary & Steve
From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group
Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group members,
I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process that was set out in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during ICANN61 and following.
As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a report for the Working Group on the input received at and since ICANN61, with recommendations on next steps from me and Heather Forrest, the GNSO Chair. We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this week, for discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual time next Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to present a summary of the report and its recommendations, and answer questions from WG members.
An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly. Bear in mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate arrangements will be made to support our call.
In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide me with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of the group on this challenging policy area.
Kind regards,
Susan Kawaguchi
Councilor for the Business Constituency
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi Phil, Re-read Paul Tattersfield's email -- he wasn't looking for your *opinion* on the Swaine memo he was just looking for **facts**. Just saying "excellent explanation" gives no reasons for that opinion, it's just a raw opinion without reasoning or facts. Saying "I remain proud" is also raw opinion (implicitly, pride of good work), without reasoning or facts. Re-read exactly what you wrote: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001128.html It was all of the form: (raw opinion) OF (TOPIC/OBJECT) You gave no "reasons" -- reasons usually follow words such as "because". I like X *BECAUSE* of Y. What you actually did was string a lot of words together that were still all one object, but without reasons, i.e. "the accepted scope of IGO judicial immunity and the varied analytical approaches that national courts take in determining the validity of IGO immunity defenses" is all just one "OBJECT", and your "raw opinion" was that it was an "excellent explanation." You now (not in your first email response to Paul) claim his question is "imprecise" --- why didn't you ask him to be more precise in that first response to Paul? It didn't occur to you then? Or was it because I called you out in my prior for ignoring the request for facts he was looking for? Instead, you just laid it on a bit too thick with the superlatives -- like candy, but without nutritional content of facts or reasoning. Now you've openly acknowledged and concede that Paul was correct in the judicial setting. There are no such cases, of course. As for the non-judicial setting (which you imply should be treated differently, by attempting to make a distinction) you've got to be kidding me. Let me "dumb it down a bit" as much as I can. Go read your statement of November 20, 2017 (i.e. still very recent!), where you were trying to defend the arbitration option (the numbering of all these options have changed numerous times), but the key part was: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-November/000921.html "It would also be inconsistent with the WG's prior determination that ICANN should not interfere with the legal rights of either party to a UDRP, and should leave judicial determinations to the courts." [that quote is actually below my reply, because you had sent the email to the list from the wrong email address, so it appears in my reply; your original email would not have been archived by the mailing list] This is key, and perhaps instead of responding quickly without thinking, and then having to backtrack (like yesterday, with your wrong timeline; thanks for the apology) this time you will read it slowly and contemplate things. And then reply after contemplating and double-checking your facts/reasoning. Let me highlight it in ALL CAPS for you to think: "ICANN SHOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF EITHER PARTY TO A UDRP" Print that out, and stare at it for a while. What happens when the very existence of those policies interfere with the legal rights? -- Houston, we have a problem. We can reshape the policy to eliminate the interference, or we can eliminate the policies themselves. (Option #7 -- eliminate the UDRP itself, for example). We've focused on the former (reshaping the policy). Let me go back to an earlier statement, still consistent with the above, by you: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2014-November/000119.html "..ICANN is not in the business of creating new legal rights..." Now, the "quirk of process" we've identified is an example of ICANN policy (UDRP/URS) *actually interfering* with those fundamental legal rights. Now. Today. It *already* interferes with those legal rights. It *already* interferes with those legal rights. It *already* interferes with those legal rights. I've said it a few times, in case you have missed that key point. Let it sink in. Print it out and stare at it for a while. That's the flaw we've been talking about these many moons (same as the Yoyo.email cause of action issue in the UK). These ICANN policies were supposed to be "without prejudice" (i.e. without detriment to the existing rights or claims of the parties to a dispute.) That was the grand bargain that got them accepted in the first place. In simple terms, those having a domain dispute can go and have their URS/UDRP, but both sides were entitled to have the dispute decided on the merits in the courts if they wanted to, de novo. The policies weren't supposed to interfere with either side -- they were supposed to be a lightweight ADR, which could then get relitigated properly in real courts if need be, de novo. From a clean slate. Without any "baggage" from the prior URS/UDRP. So, perhaps you've not caught on to this yet, but the existing policies have (unwittingly) created "new legal rights" (that don't exist otherwise in the national laws), through their interference with the legal rights of the parties, had the UDRP/URS policies not existed in the first place. Do you acknowledge/concede this? If you don't, I don't know what more to say, because this is exactly the reason we're even considering "fixes" to this problem. i.e. the fact that we're considering Options #1 through #6 is to solve a certain problem we've identified -- namely the *interference* of the rights of a registrant to have the dispute decided on its merits in the courts. You've openly admitted that before (and recently): https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-November/000936.html "Personal comment: The post-judicial granting of immunity/dismissal of litigation arbitration option is being proposed for the benefit of domain registrants, not IGOs, to assure some meaningful appeal process when the judicial route is foreclosed." This is all about fixing the flaw FOR THE BENEFIT OF DOMAIN REGISTRANTS. (which opened up the scope topic -- i.e. if we're doing this for registrants, and not for IGOs, how does that not belong in the RPM PDP? Supports Option #4, as previously noted). "THE JUDICIAL ROUTE IS FORECLOSED" -- that's the unintended consequence of the flaw in ICANN's UDRP/URS, i.e the scenarios we've been working on. Now, folks like myself (who are now in the majority, and perhaps even a consensus now) want to actually *eliminate* that bug, to stop the interference. Everything we're talking about is about solving the problem fully and properly, and not causing the interference with legal rights any more due to the UDRP/URS policies. [while we support Option #4, to get that into the RPM PDP, make no mistake -- it's about getting eventually to Option #1 or the equivalent through other means, but doing it also for the "cause of action" Yoyo.email issue too, since they have the same underlying root cause] Folks like you (the 3 participants of this PDP who support Option #3) would *preserve* the interference with the legal rights! You propose arbitration as a "good enough" solution after that interference, but it's not based on any true principles -- it's a "this should be good enough for many people" ("who cares if it's not as good as real courts, it's "good enough"). Folks like myself don't agree with Option #3 because it *still* interferes with the legal rights of registrants! (i.e. the rights that would have existed had the UDRP/URS policies themselves not caused interference) Registrants would be faced with arbitration, rather than the courts. That's an interference, pure and simple, of their rights. We actually respect the rule of law. Respect for rule of law is perhaps one of the most important principle ones can adhere to. Stakeholders would have great confidence in ICANN if its policies respected the rule of law, and that's what exactly why we *oppose* Option #3, because it doesn't have respect for the rule of law. It's saying "IGOs are above the law, and are so special that they should be given a policy that provides them something unavailable through the law." We agree with the fundamental principles of ICANN not creating new law, and ICANN not interefering with legal rights of others. Option #3 violates these principles. As to your statement implying that I'm "unwilling to acknowledge any validity in alternative viewpoints and are unwilling to contemplate any compromise when rights conflict", that's not true. First, you used the word "viewpoints", which means "point of view". Since a "point of view" can't be valid or invalid, I'm assuming you mean alternate VIEWS. Some views/positions are simply invalid. If someone had the view that the Earth was flat, am I supposed to acknowledge any validity to that "alternate view" of the world? No. When someone has a valid argument, I openly acknowledge it. And change my positions accordingly. The position of the IGOs is simply not correct. They want rights that don't exist in the national laws, and ICANN should not be in the business of creating new rights for them. They want to be able to initiate a dispute, but be insulated from the consequences of initiating the dispute. Immunity is only ever in play as a defense to a dispute, not when one is an initiator. This isn't a case where "rights conflict", e.g. privacy vs free speech, property rights vs. free speech, or other inherent rights of nature. This is a case where the rights *don't* conflict at all. It's clear cut. You've already acknowledged it yourself, in the judicial context. The initiator waives immunity. And the judicial context is the only context that matters. Because if you say, well, George, this is the non-judicial context, then what you're really saying is we're creating NEW RIGHTS for IGOs that aren't mirrored in the national laws, etc. And that's unacceptable. We're not in the business of giving them new rights (and thus taking away the rights of registrants). In other words, we don't want ICANN creating NEW LAW! And as for contemplating any compromise, I've personally bent over backwards in this PDP, perhaps more than anyone else, to come up with creative solutions to help IGOs, while still preserving the full legal rights of registrants. Who was it that identified the workaround for the licensee, agent, assignee approach? That was me! That was a breakthrough, that should have been the end of this PDP, and I openly called for that in December 2014! (more than 3 years ago) [it was before this quirk of process was ever identified, too] https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2014-December/000221.html Option #5, "in rem" vs. "in personam" -- whose "thinking outside the box" came up with that option? Oh, that was me again. i.e. there's no immunity at stake, if a registrant files the case "in rem", since the defendant is the domain itself, rather than the IGO. Option #2 (renumbered from prior ones), the hybrid solution that says one can adopt the arbitration (Option #3) *only* for newly created domain names, but have Option #1 for existing domains. Who came up with that? Oh, that was me, yet again. Option #1 -- I supported it, but it was actually first proposed by Paul Keating, not me. Option #4 -- supported, obviously, but it came from Zak, as a way to get to the finish line here, and move on to the RPM PDP where it can be combined with the Yoyo.email cause of action problem, because they're really the same underlying issue. Option #6 was proposed by Paul Tattersfield, and the mediation aspect has my support, as I've openly said before. Limited waiver -- proposed by Paul Keating, and has been incorporated into other options implicitly (supported by me too). So, to suggest I'm unable to compromise is ridiculous, when I've worked hard to find solutions. As have others in this working group. Obviously others have been able to compromise too. Why don't you re-read Susan's Summary Report, which said that of the 3 people who supported Option #3 (i.e. the one you and Petter support, with one other person), 2 of those 3 were unwilling to contemplate any other options but Option #3. How's that for lack of compromise? The folks who back Option #3 but nothing else -- how are they "acknowledging any validity in alternative viewpoints", by your words? What IGOs and GAC are pushing for are *desires*, not *rights*. And I'm perfectly happy to say "No" to their desires, if they are at the expense of a registrant's *RIGHTS*. If it was at the expense of a registrar or registry's rights, I'd have the exact same position, because I'm against the creation of new rights by ICANN. Weighing DESIRES against RIGHTS? Easy call to make. I'll go with those who have the rights on their side (registrants, in this case, whose rights are being interfered with). Weighing DESIRES against OTHER DESIRES? That's politics and/or economics. Tougher call to make, but fortunately in this PDP, we don't have to make that call. Weighing RIGHTS against RIGHTS? Another easy call to make --- courts and legislation are the proper venue for that, not ICANN. What some folks fail to realize (or perhaps obfuscate) is that some will play politics and try to frame their desires as "rights". Fortunately, many of us are on to those tactics, and reject them. It was very telling that your second last paragraph talked about a "pragmatic conclusion". Busted. That's what Option #3 is, a "pragmatic" attempt at a solution, but one at the high price of continuing to interfere with a registrant's RIGHTS, and not based on strong underlying principles. It's instead just a sloppy mishmash of poorly considered ideas, thrown together like a bad meatloaf from old scraps of leftovers but attempting to be sold as if it's filet mignon. Our palates can taste the difference, fortunately. Option #1 (via the path of Option #4 first) puts the parties back to the same position they would be without the URS/UDRP, respecting both sides' actual legal rights. It leads to a solution that doesn't interfere with anyone's rights. That's what a proper solution looks like, one that completely solves the problem. The example I gave to Susan during out telephone call back in March was a simple one, that of a plumber going to fix a water leak. Option #1 (via the path of Option #4 first) corresponds to the plumber fixing the water leak completely (i.e. the unintended consequences due to the "quirk of process" we identified are completely solved). That's the path of excellence, complete solutions. ICANN should be proud of us if we adopt that approach, which now appears to be that of the majority. Option #3 corresponds to the plumber reducing the water leak by half. There's still a leak, but it's smaller than before. That's the "pragmatic conclusion" to this PDP that you and Petter are selling, but others are not buying, and for good reason. If you hired a plumber who reduced a water leak by half, but said "that should be good enough", would you still pay him? Just because you said I can have the last word, don't let that prevent you from changing your mind and coming to terms with the analysis above. Don't feel the need to reply immediately -- let the above sink in, and deeply reflect on things (as folks on my side have done). Perhaps then you'll understand fully why Option #3 is untenable, and will work towards a proper solution. Have a great weekend! Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
George:
I had no intent to distract anyone and doubt that others on this email list were distracted or failed to understand the import of my reply.
My reply was in direct response to Paul's statement that " Swaine is irrelevant to what the working group is considering". I completely disagree for the reasons stated in that email.
Paul's inquiry - " Show me examples of where an IGO is entitled to immunity after initiating proceedings" -- is imprecise as to what proceedings he is referring to. If it is judicial proceedings them of course an IGO's initiation of process indicates an implicit waiver of judicial immunity.
But our WG was tasked with addressing IGO access to non-judicial proceedings, specifically the UDRP and URS. The fact is that GAC and IGOs have repeatedly taken the position that IGOs should not be required to waive judicial immunity as a pre-condition of accessing curative rights processes to address cybersquatting that can harm the public; and the ICANN Board has indicated a strong interest in satisfying their concerns, and is in fact required to consider consensus GAC advice. Policy recommendations that are supported by GNSO Council must subsequently be approved by the Board after consideration of relevant GAC advice.
It is a fact that you and Paul have dismissed those GAC and IGO positions as irrelevant "political" considerations, just as you have viewed IGO immunity concerns as irrelevant and not worthy of consideration is shaping a policy response within the bounds of the WG Charter.
The PDP process cannot work when WG members are unwilling to acknowledge any validity in alternative viewpoints and are unwilling to contemplate any compromise when rights conflict.
And that is precisely why this WG has reached a dead end, and why I shall have no more to say on this subject since it is only a repletion of endlessly circular policy discussions that reached no pragmatic conclusion.
So you can now have the last word, which I know is a high priority based on observation of your behavior.
Philip
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: George Kirikos [mailto:icann@leap.com] Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 11:34 AM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> Cc: gpmgroup@gmail.com; Donna.Austin@team.neustar; haforrestesq@gmail.com; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group)
Hi Phil,
In case you thought it went unnoticed, you didn't actually provide the example that Paul Tattersfield's sought. Paul sought facts, but you provided no facts.
But, thank you for proving you received and read his email, but had no answer to it ---- attempting to distract folks with a non-answer to a simple and straight-forward question is yet another example of behaviour that is fully consistent with the Section 3.7 appeal I filed, that questioned your leadership of this PDP.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Paul:
Responding in an individual capacity -- Professor Swaine's memo is an excellent explanation of the accepted scope of IGO judicial immunity and the varied analytical approaches that national courts take in determining the validity of IGO immunity defenses. I remain proud that we solicited this expert input on the central legal issue before the WG, and appreciative that ICANN funded the research.
I am sure it will be of substantial assistance to whatever decisional body determines how best to resolve the inherent conflict between statutory rights of domain registrants and the desire of IGOs to have a means of addressing cybersquatting that does not require full surrender of valid claims to judicial immunity as a condition of bringing an action.
Philip
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: Paul Tattersfield [mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 7:32 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> Cc: icann@leap.com; Donna.Austin@team.neustar; haforrestesq@gmail.com; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group)
Dear Philip,
OK lets settle this once and for all:
Show me examples of where an IGO is entitled to immunity after initiating proceedings. In either the initial proceedings or any follow-on proceedings?
Any jurisdiction will do, any matter will do......
If you can not then Swaine is irrelevant to what the working group is considering.
Yours sincerely,
Paul.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Paul:
For the record, and in regard to this -
The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end.
The discussion within the WG was not blocked by the co-chairs. It was blocked because George filed a section 3.7 Appeal at the point in time when the co-chairs wished to initiate the consensus call process. The co-chairs later offered to rescind holding an anonymous poll of the full WG but George rejected that approach and continued his appeal. So far as I am aware you supported George in these actions.
Other than speaking with Susan in their individual capacity as WG members the co-chairs had no control over the content of her report.
Speaking only for myself, I do not agree with your characterization of the Swaine memo and believe it was highly relevant to the central issue before the WG.
Philip
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, April 19, 2018 5:01 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: Donna.Austin@team.neustar; Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group)
Dear ICANN,
I agree with George, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the call later today as I have another meeting half way across the country which clashes with your call. I will listen to the call afterwards and submit any comments to the email list, sorry for any inconvenience. Please accept my apologies
Briefly, I would also like to point out:
The IGO's have accepted the principle of coexistence and as they are initiating the proceedings they have no immunity rights whatsoever in either the initial action or any follow on proceedings. This is an incredibly simple legal principle and I can not find ANY jurisdiction in the world on ANY matter not just domain names where an IGO would be entitled to do so.
The matter is only confused because the Swaine reasoning looked at the case where others are initiating an action against the IGOs i.e. a trademark owner looking to seize an IGO's asset. Clearly the expert report is not relevant to the case the working group is considering where the IGO's are initiating proceedings.
The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end. I also note with some dismay that only 2 people in the private office sessions said they were not prepared to accept any other option than option 3 - the 2 co-chairs preferred option.
We have an opportunity in this working group to set an example to the RPM working group using any IGO cases to show how UDRP can be easily improved for all parties in a way that does not tilt the balance in either side's favour but just improves process and reduces costs for all parties and meets the GAC's advice.
It really is incredibly easy - Free private mediation and a separate (voluntary for registrants) arbitration track. If you want more registrants to CHOOSE arbitration simply make it cheaper, faster and less risky (name only) than the judicial route. This could be sorted in a handful of meetings and no interest group has lost anything!
Yours sincerely,
Paul.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:38 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
With regards to the Summary Report which is to be discussed tomorrow, there are several parts of it that I disagree with, which I'll discuss orally tomorrow during our call. However, some parts deserve a written response, given that they contain supporting links (and the WebEx interface really sucks, compared to Adobe Connect) so it's best to post them in advance of the call.
1. On page 2, it's asserted that "the number of active participants is extremely low" (it's also repeated on page 3, i.e. "small number of participants' views"). However, that's not consistent with the facts. For example, the IRTP-D PDP, the most recently completed GNSO PDP according to:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive
has its attendance logs at:
https://community.icann.org/display/ITPIPDWG/Attendance+Log
If one adds up the "total attended" column, and divide it by the total number of meetings, one obtains the average attendance per meeting:
Sum of total attended column = 553 Total meetings = 56 Average = 9.88 per meeting
It is of note that both the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board adopted their recommendations:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-d
Now, let's compare this to the IGO PDP and its attendance records:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Attendance+Records
Sum of total attended column = 711 Total meetings = 71 Average = 10.01 per meeting
So, there has actually been HIGHER average attendance (10.01 vs 9.88 per meeting) in this IGO PDP, compared to the IRTP-D whose work was successfully completed.
2. On page 3, it's claimed that adoption of Option 4 "will require a Charter amendment" for that other PDP." I'm not convinced that that's a requirement. The RPM PDP charter is at:
https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+Charter?preview=3D /5872= 9944/58730036/Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final.pdf
and states on page 3 of the charter that:
"(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts In the course of its work, the Working Group should monitor the progress of and, where appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN groups that are working on topics that may overlap with or ***otherwise provide useful input to this PDP.*** .... In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT Review, and ***any other relevant GNSO policy development***"
(emphasis added)
So, I think this situation was already covered by the RPM PDP's current charter, and doesn't need an amendment.
As I mentioned earlier, there are other parts of the Summary Report I have concerns about, but I'll save them for tomorrow's call, as they don't require any links/quotes.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP Working Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan mentions in her 10 April email (below). You should already have received the calendar invitation and call details for the next Working Group call, currently scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of 1600 UTC. Susan will be on the call to discuss the report and proposed next steps with everyone.
Thanks and cheers
Mary & Steve
From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group
Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group members,
I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process that was set out in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during ICANN61 and following.
As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a report for the Working Group on the input received at and since ICANN61, with recommendations on next steps from me and Heather Forrest, the GNSO Chair. We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this week, for discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual time next Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to present a summary of the report and its recommendations, and answer questions from WG members.
An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly. Bear in mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate arrangements will be made to support our call.
In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide me with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of the group on this challenging policy area.
Kind regards,
Susan Kawaguchi
Councilor for the Business Constituency
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Philip, In your reply to George Kirikos you stated: “If it is judicial proceedings them [sic] of course an IGO's initiation of process indicates an implicit waiver of judicial immunity.” Thank you that is helpful. When I asked last year that the working group consider cases where an IGO could be entitled to immunity (i.e. when a TM holder seeks to secure a domain name owned by an IGO) I was told by those leading the working group that this scenario was not within the working group’s charter. Swaine is an analysis of cases where an IGO is entitled to jurisdictional immunity in judicial forums. Given you have just stated: “If it is judicial proceedings them [sic] of course an IGO's initiation of process indicates an implicit waiver of judicial immunity.” I fail to see how you can ever reconcile Swaine with ever being relevant to the working group’s final report. I don’t doubt it was expensive and interesting but if you want it to remain in the final report please can you reply showing how it could be in any way considered relevant? Yours sincerely, Paul On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Paul:
Responding in an individual capacity -- Professor Swaine’s memo is an excellent explanation of the accepted scope of IGO judicial immunity and the varied analytical approaches that national courts take in determining the validity of IGO immunity defenses. I remain proud that we solicited this expert input on the central legal issue before the WG, and appreciative that ICANN funded the research.
I am sure it will be of substantial assistance to whatever decisional body determines how best to resolve the inherent conflict between statutory rights of domain registrants and the desire of IGOs to have a means of addressing cybersquatting that does not require full surrender of valid claims to judicial immunity as a condition of bringing an action.
Philip
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190&entry=g...> Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* Paul Tattersfield [mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, April 19, 2018 7:32 PM *To:* Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> *Cc:* icann@leap.com; Donna.Austin@team.neustar; haforrestesq@gmail.com; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com
*Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group)
Dear Philip,
OK lets settle this once and for all:
Show me examples of where an IGO is entitled to immunity after initiating proceedings. In either the initial proceedings or any follow-on proceedings?
Any jurisdiction will do, any matter will do......
If you can not then Swaine is irrelevant to what the working group is considering.
Yours sincerely,
Paul.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Paul:
For the record, and in regard to this –
The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end.
The discussion within the WG was not blocked by the co-chairs. It was blocked because George filed a section 3.7 Appeal at the point in time when the co-chairs wished to initiate the consensus call process. The co-chairs later offered to rescind holding an anonymous poll of the full WG but George rejected that approach and continued his appeal. So far as I am aware you supported George in these actions.
Other than speaking with Susan in their individual capacity as WG members the co-chairs had no control over the content of her report.
Speaking only for myself, I do not agree with your characterization of the Swaine memo and believe it was highly relevant to the central issue before the WG.
Philip
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190&entry=g...> 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, April 19, 2018 5:01 AM *To:* George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> *Cc:* Donna.Austin@team.neustar; Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org; rafik.dammak@gmail.com *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group)
Dear ICANN,
I agree with George, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the call later today as I have another meeting half way across the country which clashes with your call. I will listen to the call afterwards and submit any comments to the email list, sorry for any inconvenience. Please accept my apologies
Briefly, I would also like to point out:
The IGO's have accepted the principle of coexistence and as they are initiating the proceedings they have no immunity rights whatsoever in either the initial action or any follow on proceedings. This is an incredibly simple legal principle and I can not find ANY jurisdiction in the world on ANY matter not just domain names where an IGO would be entitled to do so.
The matter is only confused because the Swaine reasoning looked at the case where others are initiating an action against the IGOs i.e. a trademark owner looking to seize an IGO's asset. Clearly the expert report is not relevant to the case the working group is considering where the IGO's are initiating proceedings.
The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end. I also note with some dismay that only 2 people in the private office sessions said they were not prepared to accept any other option than option 3 - the 2 co-chairs preferred option.
We have an opportunity in this working group to set an example to the RPM working group using any IGO cases to show how UDRP can be easily improved for all parties in a way that does not tilt the balance in either side's favour but just improves process and reduces costs for all parties and meets the GAC's advice.
It really is incredibly easy - Free private mediation and a separate (voluntary for registrants) arbitration track. If you want more registrants to CHOOSE arbitration simply make it cheaper, faster and less risky (name only) than the judicial route. This could be sorted in a handful of meetings and no interest group has lost anything!
Yours sincerely,
Paul.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:38 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
With regards to the Summary Report which is to be discussed tomorrow, there are several parts of it that I disagree with, which I'll discuss orally tomorrow during our call. However, some parts deserve a written response, given that they contain supporting links (and the WebEx interface really sucks, compared to Adobe Connect) so it's best to post them in advance of the call.
1. On page 2, it's asserted that "the number of active participants is extremely low" (it's also repeated on page 3, i.e. "small number of participants' views"). However, that's not consistent with the facts. For example, the IRTP-D PDP, the most recently completed GNSO PDP according to:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive
has its attendance logs at:
https://community.icann.org/display/ITPIPDWG/Attendance+Log
If one adds up the "total attended" column, and divide it by the total number of meetings, one obtains the average attendance per meeting:
Sum of total attended column = 553 Total meetings = 56 Average = 9.88 per meeting
It is of note that both the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board adopted their recommendations:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-d
Now, let's compare this to the IGO PDP and its attendance records:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Attendance+Records
Sum of total attended column = 711 Total meetings = 71 Average = 10.01 per meeting
So, there has actually been HIGHER average attendance (10.01 vs 9.88 per meeting) in this IGO PDP, compared to the IRTP-D whose work was successfully completed.
2. On page 3, it's claimed that adoption of Option 4 "will require a Charter amendment" for that other PDP." I'm not convinced that that's a requirement. The RPM PDP charter is at:
https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+ Charter?preview=3D/5872= 9944/58730036/Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final.pdf <https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+Charter?preview=3D/5872=...>
and states on page 3 of the charter that:
"(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts In the course of its work, the Working Group should monitor the progress of and, where appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN groups that are working on topics that may overlap with or ***otherwise provide useful input to this PDP.*** .... In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT Review, and ***any other relevant GNSO policy development***"
(emphasis added)
So, I think this situation was already covered by the RPM PDP's current charter, and doesn't need an amendment.
As I mentioned earlier, there are other parts of the Summary Report I have concerns about, but I'll save them for tomorrow's call, as they don't require any links/quotes.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP Working Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan mentions in her 10 April email (below). You should already have received the calendar invitation and call details for the next Working Group call, currently scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of 1600 UTC. Susan will be on the call to discuss the report and proposed next steps with everyone.
Thanks and cheers
Mary & Steve
From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group
Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group members,
I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process that was set out in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during ICANN61 and following.
As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a report for the Working Group on the input received at and since ICANN61, with recommendations on next steps from me and Heather Forrest, the GNSO Chair. We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this week, for discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual time next Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to present a summary of the report and its recommendations, and answer questions from WG members.
An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly. Bear in mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate arrangements will be made to support our call.
In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide me with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of the group on this challenging policy area.
Kind regards,
Susan Kawaguchi
Councilor for the Business Constituency
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Paul, I fully agree with your frustration that we have not been possible to work on our topic/s for over 4 months, however I also know that you are fully aware of the fact that this is definitely not decided by us Co-chairs, but a way to work on our topics preferred by MrGeorge Kirikoswho initiated the public appeal onDecember 19, “Consider this email also a public appeal via section 3.7 of theguidelines…” My personal view has always been thatit is important that our WG comes to a specific conclusion(s) on our topic, with (hopefully) one majority statement and then statements from minority group or groups. Then everyone is free to refer to the decisions of our WG when participating in other WGs and suggest that something similar is discussed also for the other WG's topic. It's a huge difference between stating that "we cannot agree on this topic and therefore leave it over to someone else" vs "our WG recommends this, which also may be something to consider in other WGs". Looking forward to meet with you all again later on today. All the best,Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you 19 april 2018 11:01:17 +02:00, skrev Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com>:
Dear ICANN,
I agree with George, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the call later today as I have another meeting half way across the country which clashes with your call. I will listen to the call afterwards and submit any comments to the email list, sorry for any inconvenience. Please accept my apologies
Briefly, I would also like to point out:
The IGO's have accepted the principle of coexistence and as they are initiating the proceedings they have no immunity rights whatsoever in either the initial action or any follow on proceedings. This is an incredibly simple legal principle and I can not find ANY jurisdiction in the world on ANY matter not just domain names where an IGO would be entitled to do so.
The matter is only confused because the Swaine reasoning looked at the case where others are initiating an action against the IGOs i.e. a trademark owner looking to seize an IGO's asset. Clearly the expert report is not relevant to the case the working group is considering where the IGO's are initiating proceedings.
The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end. I also note with some dismay that only 2 people in the private office sessions said they were not prepared to accept any other option than option 3 - the 2 co-chairs preferred option. We have an opportunity in this working group to set an example to the RPM working group using any IGO cases to show how UDRP can be easily improved for all parties in a way that does not tilt the balance in either side's favour but just improves process and reduces costs for all parties and meets the GAC's advice.
It really is incredibly easy - Free private mediation and a separate (voluntary for registrants) arbitration track. If you want more registrants to CHOOSE arbitration simply make it cheaper, faster and less risky (name only) than the judicial route. This could be sorted in a handful of meetings and no interest group has lost anything!
Yours sincerely,
Paul.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:38 AM, George Kirikos <<icann@leap.com>> wrote:
Hi folks,
With regards to the Summary Report which is to be discussed tomorrow, there are several parts of it that I disagree with, which I'll discuss orally tomorrow during our call. However, some parts deserve a written response, given that they contain supporting links (and the WebEx interface really sucks, compared to Adobe Connect) so it's best to post them in advance of the call.
1. On page 2, it's asserted that "the number of active participants is extremely low" (it's also repeated on page 3, i.e. "small number of participants' views"). However, that's not consistent with the facts. For example, the IRTP-D PDP, the most recently completed GNSO PDP according to:
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive>
has its attendance logs at:
<https://community.icann.org/display/ITPIPDWG/Attendance+Log>
If one adds up the "total attended" column, and divide it by the total number of meetings, one obtains the average attendance per meeting:
Sum of total attended column = 553 Total meetings = 56 Average = 9.88 per meeting
It is of note that both the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board adopted their recommendations:
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-d>
Now, let's compare this to the IGO PDP and its attendance records:
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Attendance+Records>
Sum of total attended column = 711 Total meetings = 71 Average = 10.01 per meeting
So, there has actually been HIGHER average attendance (10.01 vs 9.88 per meeting) in this IGO PDP, compared to the IRTP-D whose work was successfully completed.
2. On page 3, it's claimed that adoption of Option 4 "will require a Charter amendment" for that other PDP." I'm not convinced that that's a requirement. The RPM PDP charter is at:
<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+Charter?preview=3D/5872= 9944/58730036/Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final.pdf>
and states on page 3 of the charter that:
"(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts In the course of its work, the Working Group should monitor the progress of and, where appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN groups that are working on topics that may overlap with or ***otherwise provide useful input to this PDP.*** .... In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT Review, and ***any other relevant GNSO policy development***"
(emphasis added)
So, I think this situation was already covered by the RPM PDP's current charter, and doesn't need an amendment.
As I mentioned earlier, there are other parts of the Summary Report I have concerns about, but I'll save them for tomorrow's call, as they don't require any links/quotes.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <http://www.leap.com/>
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <<mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP Working Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan mentions in her 10 April email (below). You should already have received the calendar invitation and call details for the next Working Group call, currently scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of 1600 UTC. Susan will be on the call to discuss the report and proposed next steps with everyone.
Thanks and cheers
Mary & Steve
From: Susan Kawaguchi <<susankpolicy@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26 To: "<gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>" <<gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> Cc: Heather Forrest <<haforrestesq@gmail.com>>, Mary Wong <<mary.wong@icann.org>>, Steve Chan <<steve.chan@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group
Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group members,
I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process that was set out in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during ICANN61 and following.
As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a report for the Working Group on the input received at and since ICANN61, with recommendations on next steps from me and Heather Forrest, the GNSO Chair. We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this week, for discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual time next Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to present a summary of the report and its recommendations, and answer questions from WG members.
An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly. Bear in mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate arrangements will be made to support our call.
In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide me with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of the group on this challenging policy area.
Kind regards,
Susan Kawaguchi
Councilor for the Business Constituency
_______________________________________________ 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>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp>
Dear Peter, You are right it is very sad that the working group has not been able to continue its work. I have listened to the last call and I think other working group members share this disappointment. In another thread I asked Philip to show me examples of where an IGO is entitled to immunity after initiating proceedings. In either the initial proceedings or any follow-on proceedings. Somewhat buried and later in a reply to George K. Philip replied: “If it is judicial proceedings them [sic] of course an IGO's initiation of process indicates an implicit waiver of judicial immunity.” Do you agree that after initiating proceedings an IGO is never entitled to immunity or can you show me examples of where they could be entitled? Any jurisdiction will do, any matter will do .... Yours sincerely, Paul. On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Petter Rindforth < petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> wrote:
Dear Paul,
I fully agree with your frustration that we have not been possible to work on our topic/s for over 4 months, however I also know that you are fully aware of the fact that this is definitely not decided by us Co-chairs, but a way to work on our topics preferred by Mr George Kirikos who initiated the public appeal on *December 19*, “Consider this email also a public appeal via section 3.7 of the guidelines…”
My personal view has always been that it is important that our WG comes to a specific conclusion(s) on our topic, with (hopefully) one majority statement and then statements from minority group or groups.
Then everyone is free to refer to the decisions of our WG when participating in other WGs and suggest that something similar is discussed also for the other WG's topic.
It's a huge difference between stating that "we cannot agree on this topic and therefore leave it over to someone else" vs "our WG recommends this, which also may be something to consider in other WGs".
Looking forward to meet with you all again later on today.
All the best, Petter
-- Petter Rindforth, LL M
Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu
NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you
19 april 2018 11:01:17 +02:00, skrev Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com
:
Dear ICANN,
I agree with George, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the call later today as I have another meeting half way across the country which clashes with your call. I will listen to the call afterwards and submit any comments to the email list, sorry for any inconvenience. Please accept my apologies
Briefly, I would also like to point out: The IGO's have accepted the principle of coexistence and as they are initiating the proceedings they have no immunity rights whatsoever in either the initial action or any follow on proceedings. This is an incredibly simple legal principle and I can not find ANY jurisdiction in the world on ANY matter not just domain names where an IGO would be entitled to do so. The matter is only confused because the Swaine reasoning looked at the case where others are initiating an action against the IGOs i.e. a trademark owner looking to seize an IGO's asset. Clearly the expert report is not relevant to the case the working group is considering where the IGO's are initiating proceedings. The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for months and months on end. I also note with some dismay that only 2 people in the private office sessions said they were not prepared to accept any other option than option 3 - the 2 co-chairs preferred option. We have an opportunity in this working group to set an example to the RPM working group using any IGO cases to show how UDRP can be easily improved for all parties in a way that does not tilt the balance in either side's favour but just improves process and reduces costs for all parties and meets the GAC's advice.
It really is incredibly easy - Free private mediation and a separate (voluntary for registrants) arbitration track. If you want more registrants to CHOOSE arbitration simply make it cheaper, faster and less risky (name only) than the judicial route. This could be sorted in a handful of meetings and no interest group has lost anything!
Yours sincerely,
Paul.
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:38 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
With regards to the Summary Report which is to be discussed tomorrow, there are several parts of it that I disagree with, which I'll discuss orally tomorrow during our call. However, some parts deserve a written response, given that they contain supporting links (and the WebEx interface really sucks, compared to Adobe Connect) so it's best to post them in advance of the call.
1. On page 2, it's asserted that "the number of active participants is extremely low" (it's also repeated on page 3, i.e. "small number of participants' views"). However, that's not consistent with the facts. For example, the IRTP-D PDP, the most recently completed GNSO PDP according to:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive
has its attendance logs at:
https://community.icann.org/display/ITPIPDWG/Attendance+Log
If one adds up the "total attended" column, and divide it by the total number of meetings, one obtains the average attendance per meeting:
Sum of total attended column = 553 Total meetings = 56 Average = 9.88 per meeting
It is of note that both the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board adopted their recommendations:
https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-d
Now, let's compare this to the IGO PDP and its attendance records:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Attendance+Records
Sum of total attended column = 711 Total meetings = 71 Average = 10.01 per meeting
So, there has actually been HIGHER average attendance (10.01 vs 9.88 per meeting) in this IGO PDP, compared to the IRTP-D whose work was successfully completed.
2. On page 3, it's claimed that adoption of Option 4 "will require a Charter amendment" for that other PDP." I'm not convinced that that's a requirement. The RPM PDP charter is at:
https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+ Charter?preview=3D/5872= 9944/58730036/Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final.pdf <https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+Charter?preview=3D/5872=...>
and states on page 3 of the charter that:
"(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts In the course of its work, the Working Group should monitor the progress of and, where appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN groups that are working on topics that may overlap with or ***otherwise provide useful input to this PDP.*** .... In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT Review, and ***any other relevant GNSO policy development***"
(emphasis added)
So, I think this situation was already covered by the RPM PDP's current charter, and doesn't need an amendment.
As I mentioned earlier, there are other parts of the Summary Report I have concerns about, but I'll save them for tomorrow's call, as they don't require any links/quotes.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP Working Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan mentions in her 10 April email (below). You should already have received the calendar invitation and call details for the next Working Group call, currently scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of 1600 UTC. Susan will be on the call to discuss the report and proposed next steps with everyone.
Thanks and cheers
Mary & Steve
From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group
Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group members,
I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process that was set out in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during ICANN61 and following.
As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a report for the Working Group on the input received at and since ICANN61, with recommendations on next steps from me and Heather Forrest, the GNSO Chair. We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this week, for discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual time next Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to present a summary of the report and its recommendations, and answer questions from WG members.
An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly. Bear in mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate arrangements will be made to support our call.
In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide me with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of the group on this challenging policy area.
Kind regards,
Susan Kawaguchi
Councilor for the Business Constituency
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (8)
-
Corwin, Philip -
George Kirikos -
Mary Wong -
Nathalie Peregrine -
Novoa, Osvaldo -
Paul Tattersfield -
Petter Rindforth -
Steve Chan