Dear All, Please find the attendance and MP3 recording along with the AC recording and chat below for the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting held on Thursday, 14 September 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-pdp-14sep17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8qeyo3hc75/<https://participate.icann.org/p8qeyo3hc75/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=00c812ada3468bdbf76ab76ba262cba38f6b379ff1ecf84d6fb621aa57924c15> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar Attendees: George Kirikos Mason Cole Paul Tattersfield Phil Corwin Jay Chapman David Maher Osvaldo Novoa Apologies: Petter Rindforth Paul Keating ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Berry Cobb Dennis Chang Julie Bisland ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/ Wiki Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/hSkhB Thank you. Kind regards, Julie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 14 September 2017 Julie Bisland:Welcome to the IGO INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP Working Group on Thursday, 14 September 2017 at 16:00 UTC Julie Bisland:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_h... George Kirikos:Hi folks. Julie Bisland:hello George! George Kirikos:Hi Julie. George Kirikos:If I'm the only PDP participant in attendance today, it'll be easier to form a final consensus. :-) George Kirikos:Hi Mason & Phil. Mason Cole:Greetings all Philip Corwin:Hello all. Petter has a conflict and won't be joining today. Paul Tattersfield:Hello everyone George Kirikos:Welcome Paul. Paul Tattersfield:its better Paul Tattersfield:it's Mary Wong:We have pasted feedback received from Paul Keating via email to this revised diagram in the Notes pod on the right. Julie Bisland:Welcome Osvaldo Novoa Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all, sorry I'm late George Kirikos:Welcome Osvaldo. George Kirikos:It would be permissible to appeal to higher courts. Paul Tattersfield:Do we also have to define the provider(s), the governing law and the rules or arbitration? Julie Bisland:Welcome Jay Chapman Jay Chapman:Forgive my being late George Kirikos:Welcome Jay. Jay Chapman:Thanks, George George Kirikos:2nd question is easier. George Kirikos:+1 Phil Steve Chan:There is a callout (highlighted in blue) on the chart, noting where this option is possibly envisioned. George Kirikos:Conceivably it can be for the box above that, right. George Kirikos:In addition to the current box, not to replace it. George Kirikos:Perhaps send it to the mailing list, for further thinking. Paul Tattersfield:George's solution seems more elegant George Kirikos:It would just be another option, though, Paul. i.e. some might find it better to wait until the UDRP panel has weighed in. Paul Tattersfield:Paul K wanted it to be for all UDRPs Paul Tattersfield:they would have to close the judical rigts if it went to arbitration George Kirikos:I personally wouldn't expect to make that choice for myself, but it might be an option for someone else, depending on the circumstances. George Kirikos:That might have been a typo. George Kirikos:(by Paul K) George Kirikos:We'd not be able to change the arbitration for all respondents (that's something the RPM PDP might be able to do, but beyond our scope). George Kirikos:IGO can't raise immunity defence in an "in rem" case, since they're not actually being sued. (i.e. that's why Option 6 is so interesting). Jay Chapman:Paul's concern there is my greater concern with creating any type of arbitration appeal - other groups may be encouraged to seek their own appeal process Mary Wong:Staff agrees that recommending arbitration is likely beyond the PDP scope. George Kirikos:Very true, Jay. Paul Tattersfield:If an arbitration and Judical options were both open to a registrant could try the arbitration if that was lost he could then try the judical route Mary Wong:Yes, sorry for not being clearer George Kirikos:@Paul: But the idea of going to arbitration is to give up the right to access the court. Mary Wong:@Paul T, the arbitration would be binding. Mary Wong:(taking off staff hat) I'm not a public international law expert but I would think that the IGO will, as a rule, still be able to assert jurisdictional immunity as it is still a party to the dispute - unless perhaps the policy requires that agrement to this limited scope amounts to a waiver of immunity. George Kirikos:Default judgement. Jay Chapman:agree Phil George Kirikos:Right, Phil. Jay Chapman:To be clear - not all of us have tentatively agreed to an arbitration option. Still listening though George Kirikos:+1 Jay :) Paul Tattersfield:Good poin Jay I think we're only exploring if alternatives are workable George Kirikos:https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/accountants/accountants-agmt-... (5.2) Mason Cole:Would love to share, George, but out of my remit. I'd have to defer to our legal team, and you're right, can't comment on .web. George Kirikos:Right, don't want to force any comment....just curious if the ICC rules seemed "fair". George Kirikos:(since those are what ICANN and registry operators have appeared to agree to, or were compelled to agree to) Paul Tattersfield:@Mary did you have chance to find the Ki-moon letter? Steve Chan:@Paul, Mary stepped away to another meeting, even if it looks like she's present. I'll follow up with her. George Kirikos:I think there was an arbitration via ICC, see: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources... George Kirikos:OpenTLD v. ICANN George Kirikos:Also Employ Media v. ICANN Paul Tattersfield:Thanks Steve appreciated Jay Chapman:Thanks, all. Osvaldo Novoa:Thank you, bye George Kirikos:Bye folks. Have a great day. Paul Tattersfield:Thanks all bye