My personal comments on our time frame and continous adding of new proposals
Dear members of our WG, Just a few personal comments, as I can fully understand that it sometimes may be hard to remember all steps, discussions and decisions we have made together since our first meeting in August 11, 2014. As you all know, we have deeply discussed all possible variations during our WG calls, and also already at ICANN52 in Singapore, at February 13, 2015 had a full day F2F meeting (from 9.30 – 17.15), including 75 minutes discussion based on George Kirikos suggestion regarding possible “mechanics” for IGO filing.At April 29, 2015, we received the GAC reply to a number of questions we had sent to them. As to Question 3: “In opposing [amendments to the UDRP and URS] does the GAC thus advise the GNSO to preclude any possible change to its “Mutual Jurisdiction” provisions to address specific sovereign immunity concerns of IGOs? How should a curative rights process appropriately deal with this problem while also ensuring adequate due process protections for registrants?”, GAC replied that: “The GAC notes that the IGOs, in their communication to you of 16 January 2015, have advised that they consider their claimed immunity from national jurisdiction to be fundamental to their role as international bodies. There are non-judicial means to ensure due process, such as arbitration, which the GAC believes should be considered in more detail.” At February 20, 2016, we still had the goal to present our Initial Report prior to ICANN55 in Marrakech (March 5 – 10, 2016…) The Timeline was discussed and updated at our August 4, 2016 meeting:Month of August 2016(after 4 August WG call) – straw poll of members on elements to be addressed in a draft Initial Report; staff preparation of outline of report with those elements 1 & 8 September– discuss outline and elements; staff to begin filling out draft Initial Report 15 & 22 September– discuss preliminary conclusions 30 September– staff to prepare and circulate draft Initial Report 6, 13, 20 October– discuss Initial Report 24 October– publish Initial Report for public comment Early November (ICANN57)– present conclusions in Initial Report for community discussionMid-end November– begin discussion of community feedback and public comments received 3 December– public comment forum closes; staff to prepare summary and Public Comment Review Tool 8 & 15 December– continue discussions of public comments received (no meeting on 22 or 29 December) 5 & 12 January 2017– continue discussion of public comments received; determine if preliminary conclusions and any open questions need to be updated; staff to prepare draft Final Report 19 & 26 January– discuss final recommendations; staff to circulate draft Final Report by end-January 2 February– discuss Final Report 6 February- commence formal consensus call 9 & 16 February(only if needed) – WG meeting 20 February– conclude formal consensus call 27 February 2017– sign off on Final Report; chairs to submit Final Report to GNSO Council On our meetings in December 2016 – January 2017, we deeply discussed our Initial Report, and fully agreed to ask for comments on 2 options: Where an IGO succeeds in asserting its claim of jurisdictional immunity in a court of mutual jurisdiction, the Working Group recommends that in that case:Option 1- the decision rendered against the registrant in the predecessor UDRP or URS shall be vitiated; or Option 2– the decision rendered against the registrant in the predecessor UDRP or URS may be brought before the [name of arbitration entity] for de novo review and determination. Among the comments received, apart from IGO’s, there were also comments from Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, as well as from individuals (members of our WG), meaning that everyone had the possibility to comment and adding new proposals, for further discussion in our WG. We discussed the public comments received on our meetings at March 30, April 6, April 13, April 20, April 27, May 4, May 11, 2017At the May 4 meeting it was noticed a comment from some IGO.s (OECD, UN, UPU, WHO & WIPO), on the time frame, based on a discussion of it was need to have another external legal advice on Article 6ter: “IGO colleagues share the OECD’s concern that such an exercise will significantly prolong what has already been an extensive and resource-intensive process”, meaning that also IGO representatives wanted to have a result/decision of our work without further delays. At July 13, 2017, we still discussed the 2 options (Options 1 & 2 for Recommendation #4) On our July 20, call, we discussed three new options: OPTION 3 TO RECOMMENDATION #4 Suggested by Paul Keating on the Working Group call of 15 June 2017):<https://community.icann.org/x/SEfwAw>OPTION 4 TO RECOMMENDATION #4 Suggested by George Kirikos via email to the mailing list on 27 June 2017):<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-June/000769.html> ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL:
From Paul Keating, via email to the mailing list, 14 July 2017:<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igoingo-crp/2017-July/000784.html>These were further discussed on July 27, August 3 (Options 3, 4, 5, 6), and September 7 (Options 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
It is also noted that on July 26, we discussed and agreed upon a new draft timeline for completion of our WG, with December 7, 2017 for our WG to Finalize Report, and noting that December 11, 2017 was a Document deadline for GNSO Council December meeting (either submit Final Report here, or if more time is needed, aim to submit for GNSO Council meeting in January 2018). On our September 26, 2017 meeting, we agreed on Option A, B and C, which was further discussed on October 5, in preparation for a Surveyto detect consensus on Options A, B or C. At our December 7, 2017 call, we discussed Options A, B, C and George Kirikos Option 6. At our December 14 call we hadthree additional proposals (as well as A, B, C): from Zak Muscovitch, George Kirikos and Paul Tattersfield respectively, that were discussed. To summarize: I think it is clear to all of us, that we have discussed our topic/s deeply for a long time. I also think it is clear that some WG members support A, where other WG members support C (including myself). Continuously adding new proposals at the last minute, and thereby arguing that our topics have not already been fully discussed, will not change that fact. I deeply respect the knowledge and experience of all my fellow WG members, and that is why I also hope that all of you agrees that the reason why we actively join a WG is to find a solution and recommendation on specific topic/s (and keeping the time frame), rather than conclude that we shall refrain fromtaking our responsibility and instead transfer the subject to another working group. 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
I appreciate the thoughtful statement from my co-chair. I share his view that, whether or not any of the options before us receives consensus support, it is our duty and responsibility to deliver a conclusive final report rather than recommend that another working group, which already has a very broad and challenging mandate, be asked to add to that burden and reconsider a matter on which we have labored for three and a half years. 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 Petter Rindforth Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 6:17 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] My personal comments on our time frame and continous adding of new proposals Dear members of our WG, Just a few personal comments, as I can fully understand that it sometimes may be hard to remember all steps, discussions and decisions we have made together since our first meeting in August 11, 2014. As you all know, we have deeply discussed all possible variations during our WG calls, and also already at ICANN52 in Singapore, at February 13, 2015 had a full day F2F meeting (from 9.30 – 17.15), including 75 minutes discussion based on George Kirikos suggestion regarding possible “mechanics” for IGO filing. At April 29, 2015, we received the GAC reply to a number of questions we had sent to them. As to Question 3: “In opposing [amendments to the UDRP and URS] does the GAC thus advise the GNSO to preclude any possible change to its “Mutual Jurisdiction” provisions to address specific sovereign immunity concerns of IGOs? How should a curative rights process appropriately deal with this problem while also ensuring adequate due process protections for registrants?”, GAC replied that: “The GAC notes that the IGOs, in their communication to you of 16 January 2015, have advised that they consider their claimed immunity from national jurisdiction to be fundamental to their role as international bodies. There are non-judicial means to ensure due process, such as arbitration, which the GAC believes should be considered in more detail.” At February 20, 2016, we still had the goal to present our Initial Report prior to ICANN55 in Marrakech (March 5 – 10, 2016…) The Timeline was discussed and updated at our August 4, 2016 meeting: Month of August 2016 (after 4 August WG call) – straw poll of members on elements to be addressed in a draft Initial Report; staff preparation of outline of report with those elements 1 & 8 September – discuss outline and elements; staff to begin filling out draft Initial Report 15 & 22 September – discuss preliminary conclusions 30 September – staff to prepare and circulate draft Initial Report 6, 13, 20 October – discuss Initial Report 24 October – publish Initial Report for public comment Early November (ICANN57) – present conclusions in Initial Report for community discussion Mid-end November – begin discussion of community feedback and public comments received 3 December – public comment forum closes; staff to prepare summary and Public Comment Review Tool 8 & 15 December – continue discussions of public comments received (no meeting on 22 or 29 December) 5 & 12 January 2017 – continue discussion of public comments received; determine if preliminary conclusions and any open questions need to be updated; staff to prepare draft Final Report 19 & 26 January – discuss final recommendations; staff to circulate draft Final Report by end-January 2 February – discuss Final Report 6 February - commence formal consensus call 9 & 16 February (only if needed) – WG meeting 20 February – conclude formal consensus call 27 February 2017 – sign off on Final Report; chairs to submit Final Report to GNSO Council On our meetings in December 2016 – January 2017, we deeply discussed our Initial Report, and fully agreed to ask for comments on 2 options: Where an IGO succeeds in asserting its claim of jurisdictional immunity in a court of mutual jurisdiction, the Working Group recommends that in that case: Option 1 - the decision rendered against the registrant in the predecessor UDRP or URS shall be vitiated; or Option 2 – the decision rendered against the registrant in the predecessor UDRP or URS may be brought before the [name of arbitration entity] for de novo review and determination. Among the comments received, apart from IGO’s, there were also comments from Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, as well as from individuals (members of our WG), meaning that everyone had the possibility to comment and adding new proposals, for further discussion in our WG. We discussed the public comments received on our meetings at March 30, April 6, April 13, April 20, April 27, May 4, May 11, 2017 At the May 4 meeting it was noticed a comment from some IGO.s (OECD, UN, UPU, WHO & WIPO), on the time frame, based on a discussion of it was need to have another external legal advice on Article 6ter: “IGO colleagues share the OECD’s concern that such an exercise will significantly prolong what has already been an extensive and resource-intensive process”, meaning that also IGO representatives wanted to have a result/decision of our work without further delays. At July 13, 2017, we still discussed the 2 options (Options 1 & 2 for Recommendation #4) On our July 20, call, we discussed three new options: OPTION 3 TO RECOMMENDATION #4 Suggested by Paul Keating on the Working Group call of 15 June 2017): https://community.icann.org/x/SEfwAw OPTION 4 TO RECOMMENDATION #4 Suggested by George Kirikos via email to the mailing list on 27 June 2017): http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-June/000769.html ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL: From Paul Keating, via email to the mailing list, 14 July 2017: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igoingo-crp/2017-July/000784.html These were further discussed on July 27, August 3 (Options 3, 4, 5, 6), and September 7 (Options 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) It is also noted that on July 26, we discussed and agreed upon a new draft timeline for completion of our WG, with December 7, 2017 for our WG to Finalize Report, and noting that December 11, 2017 was a Document deadline for GNSO Council December meeting (either submit Final Report here, or if more time is needed, aim to submit for GNSO Council meeting in January 2018). On our September 26, 2017 meeting, we agreed on Option A, B and C, which was further discussed on October 5, in preparation for a Survey to detect consensus on Options A, B or C. At our December 7, 2017 call, we discussed Options A, B, C and George Kirikos Option 6. At our December 14 call we had three additional proposals (as well as A, B, C): from Zak Muscovitch, George Kirikos and Paul Tattersfield respectively, that were discussed. To summarize: I think it is clear to all of us, that we have discussed our topic/s deeply for a long time. I also think it is clear that some WG members support A, where other WG members support C (including myself). Continuously adding new proposals at the last minute, and thereby arguing that our topics have not already been fully discussed, will not change that fact. I deeply respect the knowledge and experience of all my fellow WG members, and that is why I also hope that all of you agrees that the reason why we actively join a WG is to find a solution and recommendation on specific topic/s (and keeping the time frame), rather than conclude that we shall refrain from taking our responsibility and instead transfer the subject to another working group. 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<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.fenixlegal.eu<http://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<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> Thank you
participants (2)
-
Corwin, Philip -
Petter Rindforth