Board-GAC Dialogue on IGOs
I post this in my capacity as a WG member, not a co-chair. The Board and GAC just discussed the issue of IGOs and this WG. The relevant portion of the transcript is below. I have been clear in the past that the issue of IGO access to curative rights processes is a very high level one within ICANN, and that the failure of this WG to reach consensus on a compromise approach that can at least be adopted by GNSO Council risks the matter being resolved in another manner other than that of the PDP WG.
MANAL ISMAIL: THANKS, GORAN. AND AGAIN, I THANK -- I THANK ICANN PEOPLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION, AND ALSO I THANK MY GAC COLLEAGUES FOR SHOWING FLEXIBILITY AND WILLING TO FIND A CONSTRUCTIVE WAY FORWARD, WHICH WAS REALLY HELPFUL AT THE END OF THE SESSION; TO FIND AN AGREED WAY FORWARD. AND WE'LL KEEP FOLLOWING UP WITH ICANN ORG ON THIS, OF COURSE.
SO WITH THIS, WE CAN NOW MOVE TO GAC QUESTIONS. AND AGAIN, MAYBE WE CAN TAKE THEM IN REVERSE ORDER AS WELL. SO WE CAN START WITH THE IGO PROTECTIONS, BECAUSE THIS IS JUST ONE QUESTION. AND THEN WE GO TO THE GDPR. I SEE NODDING, SO... SO HERE, IN A LETTER OF 22nd DECEMBER TO DONUTS, 2017 TO DONUTS, INCORPORATION, CONCERNING EUCLID UNIVERSITY THE BOARD VICE CHAIR AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE GLOBAL DOMAINS DIVISION NOTED THAT THE PROTECTIONS FOR IGO ACRONYMS REMAINS A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE GNSO AND THE GAC AND IS BEING FACILITATED BY FORMER ICANN BOARD MEMBER BRUCE TONKIN. SO CAN THE BOARD CONFIRM THAT THE FACILITATED PROCESS IN THIS REGARD HAS NOT PROGRESSED SINCE THEN, SINCE ICANN58, AND INDICATE WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS? THANK YOU.
CHRIS DISSPAIN: THANK YOU, MANAL.
MANAL ISMAIL: YES, PLEASE.
CHRIS DISSPAIN: CHRIS DISSPAIN. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. YES, IT HAS PROGRESSED.
THE SITUATION IS THAT THE FACILITATOR -- THE FACILITATION THAT BRUCE TONKIN DID LED TO AN UNDERSTANDING THAT ICANN ORG WOULD LOOK INTO CREATING WHAT WE'RE SHORTHANDING AS A WATCH LIST WHICH WOULD ENABLE IGOs TO BE INFORMED IN THE EVENT THAT SOMETHING THAT WAS AN ACRONYM OF THEIR NAME WOULD BE -- HAD BEEN REGISTERED. THAT -- THAT'S -- ICANN ORG ARE WORKING ON THAT AND ON FIGURING OUT HOW TO DO THAT. IN PARALLEL TO THAT, THE GNSO WAS RUNNING A CURATIVE RIGHTS MECHANISMS PDP, AND WE HAD DECIDED THAT -- WE ALL AGREED, REALLY, THAT THE CURATIVE RIGHTS PDP NEEDED TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE, SO THAT WE COULD EFFECTIVE LAUNCH EVERYTHING AT THE SAME TIME. SO THAT YOU COULD RELEASE -- UNRESERVE THE ACRONYMS, RELEASE THEM, AND THEN THE WATCH LIST WOULD PROVIDE IGOs WITH NOTIFICATION, AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE THE CURATIVE RIGHTS TO FALL BACK ON SHOULD THEY NEED THEM. THE BOARD LEARNED TODAY THAT THERE MAY BE SOME ISSUES WITH THE -- WITH GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. IT APPEARS TO HAVE HIT A BIT OF A PROBLEM IN REACHING CONSENSUS, AND IT MAY BE THAT THAT PDP, IN FACT, WILL FAIL TO REACH CONSENSUS, IN WHICH CASE, IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, WE WOULD NEED TO FIND A SOLUTION, ANOTHER -- ANOTHER WAY. JUST -- AT THE MEETING WE JUST HELD WHICH WAS WITH THE CONTRACTED PARTIES HOUSE, WE AGREED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE -- WITH THE CONTRACTED PARTIES HOUSE, OR, RATHER, WITH THE REGISTRARS; SEE IF WE COULD FIND A WAY OF SHORE CUTTING THE SYSTEM TO A WAY OF A CURATIVE RIGHTS MECHANISM SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON THIS. SO THINGS ARE MOVING. THEY'RE JUST MOVING SLOWLY....TO FINISH OFF, JUST TO SAY THAT WE -- WE GOT SOME INFORMATION TODAY, WHICH I'VE NOW TOLD YOU, AND WE ARE SEEING IF WE CAN FIND A WAY AROUND THAT. AND BELIEVE ME WHEN I SAY THAT I'M AS KEEN TO SORT THIS OUT AND GET RID OF IT AS YOU ALL ARE. THANK YOU.
WIPO: THANK YOU, CHAIR. I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW ON WHAT CHRIS SAID BY WAY OF THANKING CHRIS AND OTHERS INVOLVED FOR MOVING THIS PROCESS ALONG. WE'VE BEEN PLEASED TO SEE THAT IN TERMS OF THE FULL-NAME PROTECTION, WE BELIEVE WE'VE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS. AND WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF WORK TO GO TO NARROW THE GAP, AND WE'RE HOPING THAT WE CAN RELY ON ICANN FOR A LITTLE BIT OF ASSISTANCE IN THAT RESPECT.
SO I JUST, AGAIN, WANTED TO RECORD THAT WE'RE PLEASED TO SEE THAT MOVING IN A GOOD DIRECTION. AND THEN JUST TO ALSO PICK UP ON WHAT CHRIS SAID, WE HAVE HAD NOT ONLY SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH THE INTERIM REPORT OF THIS GNSO WORKING GROUP, WHICH HAS SIGNALED THAT IT WOULD COME OUT WITH RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH SQUARELY CONFLICT WITH GAC ADVICE, BUT ALSO IN THE PROCESS BREAKDOWN IN THE WORKING GROUP ITSELF. AND OBVIOUSLY THAT'S AN AREA WHERE I THINK WE'RE ALL LOOKING TO SEE WHAT UNFOLDS. THANK YOU. (Emphasis added) 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
In that case, Phil I would respectfully suggest we go for option #6 of the Straw Man because it is the only option that actually meets GAC advice and offers the IGOs a chance to settle 30%* of their disputes at no cost. In the Nominet model less than 0.5% of cases actually get appealed. Further all other options in the Straw Man argument will fail to deal with most if not all of that 0.5% of appealed names as all five options require a highly improbable theoretical scenario where a court fails to recognise an implicit waiver of jurisdictional immunity required to initiate proceedings. That scenario has not occurred to date nor is it ever likely to occur! Quite simply options 1 to 5 provide no benefits to IGOs Best regards, Paul. * 30% figure achieved at Nominet’s dispute resolution procedure using free private mediation On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:39 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp < gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> wrote:
I post this in my capacity as a WG member, not a co-chair.
The Board and GAC just discussed the issue of IGOs and this WG. The relevant portion of the transcript is below.
I have been clear in the past that the issue of IGO access to curative rights processes is a very high level one within ICANN, and that the failure of this WG to reach consensus on a compromise approach that can at least be adopted by GNSO Council risks the matter being resolved in another manner other than that of the PDP WG.
MANAL ISMAIL: THANKS, GORAN. AND AGAIN, I THANK -- I THANK ICANN PEOPLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION, AND ALSO I THANK MY GAC COLLEAGUES FOR SHOWING FLEXIBILITY AND WILLING TO FIND A CONSTRUCTIVE WAY FORWARD, WHICH WAS REALLY HELPFUL AT THE END OF THE SESSION; TO FIND AN AGREED WAY FORWARD. AND WE'LL KEEP FOLLOWING UP WITH ICANN ORG ON THIS, OF COURSE.
SO WITH THIS, WE CAN NOW MOVE TO GAC QUESTIONS. AND AGAIN, MAYBE WE CAN TAKE THEM IN REVERSE ORDER AS WELL. SO WE CAN START WITH THE IGO PROTECTIONS, BECAUSE THIS IS JUST ONE QUESTION. AND THEN WE GO TO THE GDPR. I SEE NODDING, SO...
SO HERE, IN A LETTER OF 22nd DECEMBER TO DONUTS, 2017 TO DONUTS, INCORPORATION, CONCERNING EUCLID UNIVERSITY THE BOARD VICE CHAIR AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE GLOBAL DOMAINS DIVISION NOTED THAT THE PROTECTIONS FOR IGO ACRONYMS REMAINS A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE GNSO AND THE GAC AND IS BEING FACILITATED BY FORMER ICANN BOARD MEMBER BRUCE TONKIN.
SO CAN THE BOARD CONFIRM THAT THE FACILITATED PROCESS IN THIS REGARD HAS NOT PROGRESSED SINCE THEN, SINCE ICANN58, AND INDICATE WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS?
THANK YOU.
CHRIS DISSPAIN: THANK YOU, MANAL.
MANAL ISMAIL: YES, PLEASE.
CHRIS DISSPAIN: CHRIS DISSPAIN. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. YES, IT HAS PROGRESSED.
THE SITUATION IS THAT THE FACILITATOR -- THE FACILITATION THAT BRUCE TONKIN DID LED TO AN UNDERSTANDING THAT ICANN ORG WOULD LOOK INTO CREATING WHAT WE'RE SHORTHANDING AS A WATCH LIST WHICH WOULD ENABLE IGOs TO BE INFORMED IN THE EVENT THAT SOMETHING THAT WAS AN ACRONYM OF THEIR NAME WOULD BE -- HAD BEEN REGISTERED. THAT -- THAT'S -- ICANN ORG ARE WORKING ON THAT AND ON FIGURING OUT HOW TO DO THAT.
IN PARALLEL TO THAT, THE GNSO WAS RUNNING A CURATIVE RIGHTS MECHANISMS PDP, AND WE HAD DECIDED THAT -- WE ALL AGREED, REALLY, THAT THE CURATIVE RIGHTS PDP NEEDED TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE, SO THAT WE COULD EFFECTIVE LAUNCH EVERYTHING AT THE SAME TIME. SO THAT YOU COULD RELEASE -- UNRESERVE THE ACRONYMS, RELEASE THEM, AND THEN THE WATCH LIST WOULD PROVIDE IGOs WITH NOTIFICATION, AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE THE CURATIVE RIGHTS TO FALL BACK ON SHOULD THEY NEED THEM.
THE BOARD LEARNED TODAY THAT THERE MAY BE SOME ISSUES WITH THE -- WITH GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. IT APPEARS TO HAVE HIT A BIT OF A PROBLEM IN REACHING CONSENSUS, AND *IT MAY BE THAT THAT PDP, IN FACT, WILL FAIL TO REACH CONSENSUS, IN WHICH CASE, IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, WE WOULD NEED TO FIND A SOLUTION, ANOTHER -- ANOTHER WAY.*
JUST -- AT THE MEETING WE JUST HELD WHICH WAS WITH THE CONTRACTED PARTIES HOUSE, WE AGREED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE -- WITH THE CONTRACTED PARTIES HOUSE, OR, RATHER, WITH THE REGISTRARS; SEE IF WE COULD FIND A WAY OF SHORE CUTTING THE SYSTEM TO A WAY OF A CURATIVE RIGHTS MECHANISM SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON THIS. SO THINGS ARE MOVING. THEY'RE JUST MOVING SLOWLY….TO FINISH OFF, JUST TO SAY THAT WE -- *WE GOT SOME INFORMATION TODAY, WHICH I'VE NOW TOLD YOU, AND WE ARE SEEING IF WE CAN FIND A WAY AROUND THAT. AND BELIEVE ME WHEN I SAY THAT I'M AS KEEN TO SORT THIS OUT AND GET RID OF IT AS YOU ALL ARE.*
THANK YOU.
WIPO: THANK YOU, CHAIR. I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW ON WHAT CHRIS SAID BY WAY OF THANKING CHRIS AND OTHERS INVOLVED FOR MOVING THIS PROCESS ALONG. WE'VE BEEN PLEASED TO SEE THAT IN TERMS OF THE FULL-NAME PROTECTION, WE BELIEVE WE'VE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS. AND WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF WORK TO GO TO NARROW THE GAP, AND WE'RE HOPING THAT WE CAN RELY ON ICANN FOR A LITTLE BIT OF ASSISTANCE IN THAT RESPECT.
SO I JUST, AGAIN, WANTED TO RECORD THAT WE'RE PLEASED TO SEE THAT MOVING IN A GOOD DIRECTION.
AND THEN JUST TO ALSO PICK UP ON WHAT CHRIS SAID, WE HAVE HAD NOT ONLY SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH THE INTERIM REPORT OF THIS GNSO WORKING GROUP, WHICH HAS SIGNALED THAT IT WOULD COME OUT WITH RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH SQUARELY CONFLICT WITH GAC ADVICE, BUT ALSO IN THE PROCESS BREAKDOWN IN THE WORKING GROUP ITSELF. AND OBVIOUSLY THAT'S AN AREA WHERE I THINK WE'RE ALL LOOKING TO SEE WHAT UNFOLDS.
THANK YOU.
(Emphasis added)
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648 <(703)%20948-4648>/Direct
571-342-7489 <(571)%20342-7489>/Cell
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Paul: Option 6 reads: • We should arrange for the UDRP providers [to] provide [mediation] at no cost to the parties. The UDRP already permits the resolution of disputes through arbitration - I would bind the IGOs to arbitration in the same way the Mutual Jurisdiction clause binds complainants to the registrant’s judicial system. Where an IGO refuses to take part in a judicial proceeding or judicial or arbitral proceedings, or successfully asserts immunity in a judicial proceeding, any prior UDRP determination would be quashed. It is unclear to me what is being proposed here. Mediation is merely assisted negotiation, but is not binding. But it also says “I would bind the IGOs to arbitration”, and mandatory arbitration is binding (and is what IGOs have proposed as a substitute for judicial appeal). If mediation fails then there must be recourse to a means of judging the dispute. Will it be the UDRP or binding arbitration? If it is the former then IGOs still assert an immunity right and concern. And the GAC advice referenced by the WIPO speaker had consistently been that when an IGO brings a DRP (and they want one separate from UDRP) the registrant should have no right of judicial appeal but must settle for arbitration. So I fine with encouraging mediation. But that is part of a solution, not the entire one. 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: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 6:30 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Board-GAC Dialogue on IGOs In that case, Phil I would respectfully suggest we go for option #6 of the Straw Man because it is the only option that actually meets GAC advice and offers the IGOs a chance to settle 30%* of their disputes at no cost. In the Nominet model less than 0.5% of cases actually get appealed. Further all other options in the Straw Man argument will fail to deal with most if not all of that 0.5% of appealed names as all five options require a highly improbable theoretical scenario where a court fails to recognise an implicit waiver of jurisdictional immunity required to initiate proceedings. That scenario has not occurred to date nor is it ever likely to occur! Quite simply options 1 to 5 provide no benefits to IGOs Best regards, Paul. * 30% figure achieved at Nominet’s dispute resolution procedure using free private mediation On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:39 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> wrote: I post this in my capacity as a WG member, not a co-chair. The Board and GAC just discussed the issue of IGOs and this WG. The relevant portion of the transcript is below. I have been clear in the past that the issue of IGO access to curative rights processes is a very high level one within ICANN, and that the failure of this WG to reach consensus on a compromise approach that can at least be adopted by GNSO Council risks the matter being resolved in another manner other than that of the PDP WG.
MANAL ISMAIL: THANKS, GORAN. AND AGAIN, I THANK -- I THANK ICANN PEOPLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION, AND ALSO I THANK MY GAC COLLEAGUES FOR SHOWING FLEXIBILITY AND WILLING TO FIND A CONSTRUCTIVE WAY FORWARD, WHICH WAS REALLY HELPFUL AT THE END OF THE SESSION; TO FIND AN AGREED WAY FORWARD. AND WE'LL KEEP FOLLOWING UP WITH ICANN ORG ON THIS, OF COURSE.
SO WITH THIS, WE CAN NOW MOVE TO GAC QUESTIONS. AND AGAIN, MAYBE WE CAN TAKE THEM IN REVERSE ORDER AS WELL. SO WE CAN START WITH THE IGO PROTECTIONS, BECAUSE THIS IS JUST ONE QUESTION. AND THEN WE GO TO THE GDPR. I SEE NODDING, SO... SO HERE, IN A LETTER OF 22nd DECEMBER TO DONUTS, 2017 TO DONUTS, INCORPORATION, CONCERNING EUCLID UNIVERSITY THE BOARD VICE CHAIR AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE GLOBAL DOMAINS DIVISION NOTED THAT THE PROTECTIONS FOR IGO ACRONYMS REMAINS A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE GNSO AND THE GAC AND IS BEING FACILITATED BY FORMER ICANN BOARD MEMBER BRUCE TONKIN. SO CAN THE BOARD CONFIRM THAT THE FACILITATED PROCESS IN THIS REGARD HAS NOT PROGRESSED SINCE THEN, SINCE ICANN58, AND INDICATE WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS? THANK YOU.
CHRIS DISSPAIN: THANK YOU, MANAL.
MANAL ISMAIL: YES, PLEASE.
CHRIS DISSPAIN: CHRIS DISSPAIN. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. YES, IT HAS PROGRESSED.
THE SITUATION IS THAT THE FACILITATOR -- THE FACILITATION THAT BRUCE TONKIN DID LED TO AN UNDERSTANDING THAT ICANN ORG WOULD LOOK INTO CREATING WHAT WE'RE SHORTHANDING AS A WATCH LIST WHICH WOULD ENABLE IGOs TO BE INFORMED IN THE EVENT THAT SOMETHING THAT WAS AN ACRONYM OF THEIR NAME WOULD BE -- HAD BEEN REGISTERED. THAT -- THAT'S -- ICANN ORG ARE WORKING ON THAT AND ON FIGURING OUT HOW TO DO THAT. IN PARALLEL TO THAT, THE GNSO WAS RUNNING A CURATIVE RIGHTS MECHANISMS PDP, AND WE HAD DECIDED THAT -- WE ALL AGREED, REALLY, THAT THE CURATIVE RIGHTS PDP NEEDED TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE, SO THAT WE COULD EFFECTIVE LAUNCH EVERYTHING AT THE SAME TIME. SO THAT YOU COULD RELEASE -- UNRESERVE THE ACRONYMS, RELEASE THEM, AND THEN THE WATCH LIST WOULD PROVIDE IGOs WITH NOTIFICATION, AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE THE CURATIVE RIGHTS TO FALL BACK ON SHOULD THEY NEED THEM. THE BOARD LEARNED TODAY THAT THERE MAY BE SOME ISSUES WITH THE -- WITH GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. IT APPEARS TO HAVE HIT A BIT OF A PROBLEM IN REACHING CONSENSUS, AND IT MAY BE THAT THAT PDP, IN FACT, WILL FAIL TO REACH CONSENSUS, IN WHICH CASE, IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, WE WOULD NEED TO FIND A SOLUTION, ANOTHER -- ANOTHER WAY. JUST -- AT THE MEETING WE JUST HELD WHICH WAS WITH THE CONTRACTED PARTIES HOUSE, WE AGREED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE -- WITH THE CONTRACTED PARTIES HOUSE, OR, RATHER, WITH THE REGISTRARS; SEE IF WE COULD FIND A WAY OF SHORE CUTTING THE SYSTEM TO A WAY OF A CURATIVE RIGHTS MECHANISM SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON THIS. SO THINGS ARE MOVING. THEY'RE JUST MOVING SLOWLY….TO FINISH OFF, JUST TO SAY THAT WE -- WE GOT SOME INFORMATION TODAY, WHICH I'VE NOW TOLD YOU, AND WE ARE SEEING IF WE CAN FIND A WAY AROUND THAT. AND BELIEVE ME WHEN I SAY THAT I'M AS KEEN TO SORT THIS OUT AND GET RID OF IT AS YOU ALL ARE. THANK YOU.
WIPO: THANK YOU, CHAIR. I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW ON WHAT CHRIS SAID BY WAY OF THANKING CHRIS AND OTHERS INVOLVED FOR MOVING THIS PROCESS ALONG. WE'VE BEEN PLEASED TO SEE THAT IN TERMS OF THE FULL-NAME PROTECTION, WE BELIEVE WE'VE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS. AND WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF WORK TO GO TO NARROW THE GAP, AND WE'RE HOPING THAT WE CAN RELY ON ICANN FOR A LITTLE BIT OF ASSISTANCE IN THAT RESPECT.
SO I JUST, AGAIN, WANTED TO RECORD THAT WE'RE PLEASED TO SEE THAT MOVING IN A GOOD DIRECTION. AND THEN JUST TO ALSO PICK UP ON WHAT CHRIS SAID, WE HAVE HAD NOT ONLY SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH THE INTERIM REPORT OF THIS GNSO WORKING GROUP, WHICH HAS SIGNALED THAT IT WOULD COME OUT WITH RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH SQUARELY CONFLICT WITH GAC ADVICE, BUT ALSO IN THE PROCESS BREAKDOWN IN THE WORKING GROUP ITSELF. AND OBVIOUSLY THAT'S AN AREA WHERE I THINK WE'RE ALL LOOKING TO SEE WHAT UNFOLDS. THANK YOU. (Emphasis added) Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648<tel:(703)%20948-4648>/Direct 571-342-7489<tel:(571)%20342-7489>/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey _______________________________________________ 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
Phillip, Go to hear you're fine with the mediation part.... The process path would be (i) Free Private Mediation (ii) Determination (iii)The registrant has a choice of arbitration OR the judicial route to contest an adverse determination decision. UDRP already permits the resolution of disputes through arbitration I would bind the IGOs to arbitration in the same way the mutual jurisdiction clause binds complainants to the registrant’s judicial system(s). This is to prevent the scenario where a registrant has lost a UDRP determination and they wish to use arbitration to contest that decision and is faced with the situation where an IGO refuses to take part in the arbitration. This shouldn’t be a problem for the IGOs because they have stated they would prefer a registrant to seek arbitration rather than take the judicial route. It could be done very simply when an IGO initiates proceedings: Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy App: 28/09/2013 - Imp:31/07/15 *3 (xii) State that Complainant will submit, with respect to any challenges to a decision in the administrative proceeding canceling or transferring the domain name, to the jurisdiction of the courts in at least one specified Mutual Jurisdiction;3 (xiii) State that an IGO Complainant will submit, with respect to any challenges to a decision in the administrative proceeding canceling or transferring the domain name, to arbitration. * This should increase beyond 30% the number of disputes being settled in a way that is acceptable to the IGOs and the GAC. If the working group wanted more registrants to choose this route, the working group could set out a framework, but it needs to be faster, cheaper and less risk involved (name only etc.) for registrants who wish to appeal to be persuaded to choose to go the arbitration route instead of the judicial route. Best regards, Paul On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 11:13 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
Paul:
Option 6 reads:
• *We should arrange for the UDRP providers [to] provide [mediation] at no cost to the parties. The UDRP already permits the resolution of disputes through arbitration - I would bind the IGOs to arbitration in the same way the Mutual Jurisdiction clause binds complainants to the registrant’s judicial system. Where an IGO refuses to take part in a judicial proceeding or judicial or arbitral proceedings, or successfully asserts immunity in a judicial proceeding, any prior UDRP determination would be quashed. *
It is unclear to me what is being proposed here. Mediation is merely assisted negotiation, but is not binding. But it also says “I would bind the IGOs to arbitration”, and mandatory arbitration is binding (and is what IGOs have proposed as a substitute for judicial appeal).
If mediation fails then there must be recourse to a means of judging the dispute. Will it be the UDRP or binding arbitration? If it is the former then IGOs still assert an immunity right and concern. And the GAC advice referenced by the WIPO speaker had consistently been that when an IGO brings a DRP (and they want one separate from UDRP) the registrant should have no right of judicial appeal but must settle for arbitration.
So I fine with encouraging mediation. But that is part of a solution, not the entire one.
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 <(703)%20948-4648>/Direct
571-342-7489 <(571)%20342-7489>/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:* Tuesday, March 13, 2018 6:30 PM *To:* gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Board-GAC Dialogue on IGOs
In that case, Phil I would respectfully suggest we go for option #6 of the Straw Man because it is the only option that actually meets GAC advice and offers the IGOs a chance to settle 30%* of their disputes at no cost.
In the Nominet model less than 0.5% of cases actually get appealed. Further all other options in the Straw Man argument will fail to deal with most if not all of that 0.5% of appealed names as all five options require a highly improbable theoretical scenario where a court fails to recognise an implicit waiver of jurisdictional immunity required to initiate proceedings. That scenario has not occurred to date nor is it ever likely to occur!
Quite simply options 1 to 5 provide no benefits to IGOs
Best regards,
Paul. * 30% figure achieved at Nominet’s dispute resolution procedure using free private mediation
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:39 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp < gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> wrote:
I post this in my capacity as a WG member, not a co-chair.
The Board and GAC just discussed the issue of IGOs and this WG. The relevant portion of the transcript is below.
I have been clear in the past that the issue of IGO access to curative rights processes is a very high level one within ICANN, and that the failure of this WG to reach consensus on a compromise approach that can at least be adopted by GNSO Council risks the matter being resolved in another manner other than that of the PDP WG.
MANAL ISMAIL: THANKS, GORAN. AND AGAIN, I THANK -- I THANK ICANN PEOPLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION, AND ALSO I THANK MY GAC COLLEAGUES FOR SHOWING FLEXIBILITY AND WILLING TO FIND A CONSTRUCTIVE WAY FORWARD, WHICH WAS REALLY HELPFUL AT THE END OF THE SESSION; TO FIND AN AGREED WAY FORWARD. AND WE'LL KEEP FOLLOWING UP WITH ICANN ORG ON THIS, OF COURSE.
SO WITH THIS, WE CAN NOW MOVE TO GAC QUESTIONS. AND AGAIN, MAYBE WE CAN TAKE THEM IN REVERSE ORDER AS WELL. SO WE CAN START WITH THE IGO PROTECTIONS, BECAUSE THIS IS JUST ONE QUESTION. AND THEN WE GO TO THE GDPR. I SEE NODDING, SO...
SO HERE, IN A LETTER OF 22nd DECEMBER TO DONUTS, 2017 TO DONUTS, INCORPORATION, CONCERNING EUCLID UNIVERSITY THE BOARD VICE CHAIR AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE GLOBAL DOMAINS DIVISION NOTED THAT THE PROTECTIONS FOR IGO ACRONYMS REMAINS A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE GNSO AND THE GAC AND IS BEING FACILITATED BY FORMER ICANN BOARD MEMBER BRUCE TONKIN.
SO CAN THE BOARD CONFIRM THAT THE FACILITATED PROCESS IN THIS REGARD HAS NOT PROGRESSED SINCE THEN, SINCE ICANN58, AND INDICATE WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS?
THANK YOU.
CHRIS DISSPAIN: THANK YOU, MANAL.
MANAL ISMAIL: YES, PLEASE.
CHRIS DISSPAIN: CHRIS DISSPAIN. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. YES, IT HAS PROGRESSED.
THE SITUATION IS THAT THE FACILITATOR -- THE FACILITATION THAT BRUCE TONKIN DID LED TO AN UNDERSTANDING THAT ICANN ORG WOULD LOOK INTO CREATING WHAT WE'RE SHORTHANDING AS A WATCH LIST WHICH WOULD ENABLE IGOs TO BE INFORMED IN THE EVENT THAT SOMETHING THAT WAS AN ACRONYM OF THEIR NAME WOULD BE -- HAD BEEN REGISTERED. THAT -- THAT'S -- ICANN ORG ARE WORKING ON THAT AND ON FIGURING OUT HOW TO DO THAT.
IN PARALLEL TO THAT, THE GNSO WAS RUNNING A CURATIVE RIGHTS MECHANISMS PDP, AND WE HAD DECIDED THAT -- WE ALL AGREED, REALLY, THAT THE CURATIVE RIGHTS PDP NEEDED TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE, SO THAT WE COULD EFFECTIVE LAUNCH EVERYTHING AT THE SAME TIME. SO THAT YOU COULD RELEASE -- UNRESERVE THE ACRONYMS, RELEASE THEM, AND THEN THE WATCH LIST WOULD PROVIDE IGOs WITH NOTIFICATION, AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE THE CURATIVE RIGHTS TO FALL BACK ON SHOULD THEY NEED THEM.
THE BOARD LEARNED TODAY THAT THERE MAY BE SOME ISSUES WITH THE -- WITH GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. IT APPEARS TO HAVE HIT A BIT OF A PROBLEM IN REACHING CONSENSUS, AND *IT MAY BE THAT THAT PDP, IN FACT, WILL FAIL TO REACH CONSENSUS, IN WHICH CASE, IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, WE WOULD NEED TO FIND A SOLUTION, ANOTHER -- ANOTHER WAY.*
JUST -- AT THE MEETING WE JUST HELD WHICH WAS WITH THE CONTRACTED PARTIES HOUSE, WE AGREED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE -- WITH THE CONTRACTED PARTIES HOUSE, OR, RATHER, WITH THE REGISTRARS; SEE IF WE COULD FIND A WAY OF SHORE CUTTING THE SYSTEM TO A WAY OF A CURATIVE RIGHTS MECHANISM SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON THIS. SO THINGS ARE MOVING. THEY'RE JUST MOVING SLOWLY….TO FINISH OFF, JUST TO SAY THAT WE -- *WE GOT SOME INFORMATION TODAY, WHICH I'VE NOW TOLD YOU, AND WE ARE SEEING IF WE CAN FIND A WAY AROUND THAT. AND BELIEVE ME WHEN I SAY THAT I'M AS KEEN TO SORT THIS OUT AND GET RID OF IT AS YOU ALL ARE.*
THANK YOU.
WIPO: THANK YOU, CHAIR. I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW ON WHAT CHRIS SAID BY WAY OF THANKING CHRIS AND OTHERS INVOLVED FOR MOVING THIS PROCESS ALONG. WE'VE BEEN PLEASED TO SEE THAT IN TERMS OF THE FULL-NAME PROTECTION, WE BELIEVE WE'VE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS. AND WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF WORK TO GO TO NARROW THE GAP, AND WE'RE HOPING THAT WE CAN RELY ON ICANN FOR A LITTLE BIT OF ASSISTANCE IN THAT RESPECT.
SO I JUST, AGAIN, WANTED TO RECORD THAT WE'RE PLEASED TO SEE THAT MOVING IN A GOOD DIRECTION.
AND THEN JUST TO ALSO PICK UP ON WHAT CHRIS SAID, WE HAVE HAD NOT ONLY SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH THE INTERIM REPORT OF THIS GNSO WORKING GROUP, WHICH HAS SIGNALED THAT IT WOULD COME OUT WITH RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH SQUARELY CONFLICT WITH GAC ADVICE, BUT ALSO IN THE PROCESS BREAKDOWN IN THE WORKING GROUP ITSELF. AND OBVIOUSLY THAT'S AN AREA WHERE I THINK WE'RE ALL LOOKING TO SEE WHAT UNFOLDS.
THANK YOU.
(Emphasis added)
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 <(703)%20948-4648>/Direct
571-342-7489 <(571)%20342-7489>/Cell
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Hi folks, Once again, this PDP shouldn't be influenced by those pointing to external pressures to reach a predetermined outcome that doesn't "conflict with GAC advice" (in WIPO's words), or that want a so-called "solution" to a problem that only IGOs believe exist, and which they've not demonstrated during the course of this PDP. The weight of our report has already dismissed the underlying premise behind the IGOs' arguments, articulating why in a reasoned manner, and I think there's a consensus on that already (we'll wait and see, but that's been the tone of the debate within the working group so far, before it gets decided formally). WIPO or Chris Disspain could have and should have joined this PDP if they had anything useful to contribute -- legal, analysis, evidence, data, or whatever. They chose not to do so. If they're going to dispute our findings, it's not good enough to simply say "we're not happy" -- they need to point out an error in the analysis, which they've been unable to do. Where the major divisions have emerged are with regards to handle the "quirk of process" that have absolutely to do with improving access to the UDRP/URS for IGOs. Recommendation #4 has everything to do with how to handle the quirk of process for the benefit of *registrants*. As I've argued previously, since this is a benefit for the registrants and has nothing to do with our charter as written (it was a quirk of process discovered in the context of researching IGOs, immunity and the UDRP/URS, but is outside the charter's narrow focus), then the issue should have simply been noted, and the facts/research passed along to the RPM PDP, whose entire purpose revolves around reviewing the UDRP/URS for the unintended consequence of those policies. That quirk of process is an example of an unintended consequence. In my section 3.7 Appeal call with Heather Forrest, this was pointed out, that this was a threshold test, whether to even make a recommendation #4. There were no formal "conclusions" per se of that appeal (we seem to be handling it informally at the moment), but Heather seemed to indicate (that call was recorded and is on the wiki) that the charter's remit could be expanded in practice beyond what the actual words of the charter say. If that's the case (I'm not saying I agree with that, but for the sake of argument), then the question becomes, "If we *can* make a recommendation on this quirk of process, *should* we make one?" Here, once again, we can look to the charter which says (in the Amended PDP charter): https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/WG+Charter "As part of its deliberations, the CRP PDP WG should, at a minimum, consider the following issues detailed in Section IX of the Final Issue Report. These are: ... The interplay between the topic under consideration in this PDP and the forthcoming GNSO review of the UDRP, URS and other rights-protection mechanisms;" That's *clearly* stated in the charter -- and that's why Zak's proposal makes sense as it explicitly considers that interplay which we're supposed to specifically contemplate. Indeed, the Charter goes on to say that: "Bear in mind that any recommendations relating to the UDRP and URS that are developed by this PDP WG may be subject to further review under the GNSO’s forthcoming PDP to review the UDRP and all the rights protection mechanisms that were developed for the New gTLD Program." So, why engage in duplicative effort to come up with a solution that is going to be revisited again later, with a group that's larger and more well represented than our own?? I've *already* raised this issue in the RPM PDP (in the context of the URS deliberations, as that's where we are now, and will do so again when it gets tor the UDRP), as this quirk of process has an underlying problem that also is related to the "lack of cause of action" issue that affects access to the courts for registrants in the UK, as per the Yoyo.email matter previously discussed. The solution for the Yoyo.email cause of action issue in the UK should ultimately be the same as the immunity issue (not just for IGOs, but there can be tribal immunity, or other immunities) given they both ultimately concern registrant access to the courts. That's the proper analysis, and those pushing to reach a different conclusion really haven't articulated why the above is wrong. They're the ones holding back a "consensus", in my view, not the ones like myself who are making a logical argument. Provide a logical reason for not doing the above --- I've failed to see one. Saying "well, the GAC won't like it" or "WIPO won't like it" or "you've gotta compromise, George" doesn't cut it -- that's playing politics, rather than making sound judgments based on what the law, data and analysis tell us. I'm not prepared to turn off my brain, "hold my nose", or agree with unsound or illogical arguments just for the sake of a false compromise that "has the most votes". Now, if we have a gun to our heads (not a logical argument, but giving in to coercion), and we're going to *have* to decide what to do next, then arbitration as a recommendation isn't a proper outcome to what a PDP should be. Its "solution" is to accept and preserve the "quirk of process", which makes no sense. How can our PDP identify a bug, but then decide to preserve it, instead of eliminating it (as option #1, setting aside the UDRP/URS decision to ensure courts have supremacy, would do)? It shows a lack of courage to find a bug but not actually do the right thing and fix the bug. Do that in another context (e.g. software programming, etc.) and one would get fired for coming up with such a bad decision. Phil's repeated attempts to sell arbitration as some sort of compromise is like the fallacious "Judgment of Solomon" in offering up "splitting the baby" as a "compromise". It's not based on any sound reasoning. It's a false compromise. Option #1 (setting aside the UDRP/URS decision to give the courts a clean slate), or something like it that the RPM PDP can determine in due course, has a solid foundation, namely that it is 100% consistent with the principle that ICANN should not be creating policies that create new "law" or rights --- i.e. that our policymaking is subordinate to the real world laws. This is not some new principle -- it's a long-established principle that was the foundation of how the UDRP was created nearly 20 years ago. The UDRP wouldn't have been accepted had it intentionally created new rights that superseded the national laws. Option #1 recognizes that the UDRP and URS as currently written are *causing* that quirk of process (where the registrant's rights to have the dispute decided on the merits in the courts is being affected), via an unintended consequence. The solution, which was obvious from the start (that's why it's numbered Option #1, because it was a solution given first when the issue was identified) was simply to put the parties (IGO and domain owner) back in the same positions they were before they even had the UDRP/URS, and let them solve the dispute **in court**, as if the UDRP/URS had never taken place. Essentially, we've been sidetracked for more than a year because a second alternative was suggested at some point as a "compromise" that had no logical foundation and that had no consistency with the rest of our report (which led to even more alternatives as things snowballed). Our report was premised on the idea that we shouldn't do anything special for IGOs, because that would be giving them new rights not found in law (i.e. we shouldn't be creating any new rights for anyone, we should be subordinate to the real world law). The real world law is simple. A TM holder or other party disputing a domain registrant's rights takes the domain registrant to court. That's what Option #1 accomplishes, ultimately! It doesn't get any simpler or cleaner than that. The effect of option #1 is the desired effect that premised the entire UDRP/URS, namely that national courts have supremacy. As I said above, we can get to that conclusion that Option #1 is correct within the RPM PDP, and should refer it to them (via Zak's proposal) to decide it there and get it implemented. Indeed, ICANN is talking about budget cuts these days. I don't know how anyone can pragmatically support investing the time, money and energy to create a brand new arbitration system (i.e. via an Implementation Working Group that needs to be staffed which costs money, not even counting the time wasted by volunteers), for a scenario (the quirk of process) that has never actually been experienced yet (i.e. we've discovered a theoretical bug, one that is interrelated with the Yoyo.email "cause of action" scenario that has *actually* taken place, which isn't theoretical). For those in the RPM PDP, that's why the review of the PDDRP (a dispute resolution procedure for registry operators) went so fast -- because it was a policy that had never been used, and ultimately it was decided to change nothing. We've spent over a year analyzing a scenario that hasn't actually been encountered (although it is something that should get fixed, along with the Yoyo.email situation, as the RPM PDP does its review, since it affects access to courts by registrants ultimately through the same root cause). And then even if a Implementation Working Group comes up with something after a year or two, it can be undone by the RPM PDP ultimately, given it even says so in our charter. The path before us is clear. I hope the rest of the members of this PDP will join those of us who've thought through all of the above matters deeply and come to the same conclusion. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 5:39 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> wrote:
I post this in my capacity as a WG member, not a co-chair.
The Board and GAC just discussed the issue of IGOs and this WG. The relevant portion of the transcript is below.
I have been clear in the past that the issue of IGO access to curative rights processes is a very high level one within ICANN, and that the failure of this WG to reach consensus on a compromise approach that can at least be adopted by GNSO Council risks the matter being resolved in another manner other than that of the PDP WG.
MANAL ISMAIL: THANKS, GORAN. AND AGAIN, I THANK -- I THANK ICANN PEOPLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION, AND ALSO I THANK MY GAC COLLEAGUES FOR SHOWING FLEXIBILITY AND WILLING TO FIND A CONSTRUCTIVE WAY FORWARD, WHICH WAS REALLY HELPFUL AT THE END OF THE SESSION; TO FIND AN AGREED WAY FORWARD. AND WE'LL KEEP FOLLOWING UP WITH ICANN ORG ON THIS, OF COURSE.
SO WITH THIS, WE CAN NOW MOVE TO GAC QUESTIONS. AND AGAIN, MAYBE WE CAN TAKE THEM IN REVERSE ORDER AS WELL. SO WE CAN START WITH THE IGO PROTECTIONS, BECAUSE THIS IS JUST ONE QUESTION. AND THEN WE GO TO THE GDPR. I SEE NODDING, SO...
SO HERE, IN A LETTER OF 22nd DECEMBER TO DONUTS, 2017 TO DONUTS, INCORPORATION, CONCERNING EUCLID UNIVERSITY THE BOARD VICE CHAIR AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE GLOBAL DOMAINS DIVISION NOTED THAT THE PROTECTIONS FOR IGO ACRONYMS REMAINS A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE GNSO AND THE GAC AND IS BEING FACILITATED BY FORMER ICANN BOARD MEMBER BRUCE TONKIN.
SO CAN THE BOARD CONFIRM THAT THE FACILITATED PROCESS IN THIS REGARD HAS NOT PROGRESSED SINCE THEN, SINCE ICANN58, AND INDICATE WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS?
THANK YOU.
CHRIS DISSPAIN: THANK YOU, MANAL.
MANAL ISMAIL: YES, PLEASE.
CHRIS DISSPAIN: CHRIS DISSPAIN. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. YES, IT HAS PROGRESSED.
THE SITUATION IS THAT THE FACILITATOR -- THE FACILITATION THAT BRUCE TONKIN DID LED TO AN UNDERSTANDING THAT ICANN ORG WOULD LOOK INTO CREATING WHAT WE'RE SHORTHANDING AS A WATCH LIST WHICH WOULD ENABLE IGOs TO BE INFORMED IN THE EVENT THAT SOMETHING THAT WAS AN ACRONYM OF THEIR NAME WOULD BE -- HAD BEEN REGISTERED. THAT -- THAT'S -- ICANN ORG ARE WORKING ON THAT AND ON FIGURING OUT HOW TO DO THAT.
IN PARALLEL TO THAT, THE GNSO WAS RUNNING A CURATIVE RIGHTS MECHANISMS PDP, AND WE HAD DECIDED THAT -- WE ALL AGREED, REALLY, THAT THE CURATIVE RIGHTS PDP NEEDED TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE, SO THAT WE COULD EFFECTIVE LAUNCH EVERYTHING AT THE SAME TIME. SO THAT YOU COULD RELEASE -- UNRESERVE THE ACRONYMS, RELEASE THEM, AND THEN THE WATCH LIST WOULD PROVIDE IGOs WITH NOTIFICATION, AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE THE CURATIVE RIGHTS TO FALL BACK ON SHOULD THEY NEED THEM.
THE BOARD LEARNED TODAY THAT THERE MAY BE SOME ISSUES WITH THE -- WITH GNSO POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. IT APPEARS TO HAVE HIT A BIT OF A PROBLEM IN REACHING CONSENSUS, AND IT MAY BE THAT THAT PDP, IN FACT, WILL FAIL TO REACH CONSENSUS, IN WHICH CASE, IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, WE WOULD NEED TO FIND A SOLUTION, ANOTHER -- ANOTHER WAY.
JUST -- AT THE MEETING WE JUST HELD WHICH WAS WITH THE CONTRACTED PARTIES HOUSE, WE AGREED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE -- WITH THE CONTRACTED PARTIES HOUSE, OR, RATHER, WITH THE REGISTRARS; SEE IF WE COULD FIND A WAY OF SHORE CUTTING THE SYSTEM TO A WAY OF A CURATIVE RIGHTS MECHANISM SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON THIS. SO THINGS ARE MOVING. THEY'RE JUST MOVING SLOWLY….TO FINISH OFF, JUST TO SAY THAT WE -- WE GOT SOME INFORMATION TODAY, WHICH I'VE NOW TOLD YOU, AND WE ARE SEEING IF WE CAN FIND A WAY AROUND THAT. AND BELIEVE ME WHEN I SAY THAT I'M AS KEEN TO SORT THIS OUT AND GET RID OF IT AS YOU ALL ARE.
THANK YOU.
WIPO: THANK YOU, CHAIR. I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW ON WHAT CHRIS SAID BY WAY OF THANKING CHRIS AND OTHERS INVOLVED FOR MOVING THIS PROCESS ALONG. WE'VE BEEN PLEASED TO SEE THAT IN TERMS OF THE FULL-NAME PROTECTION, WE BELIEVE WE'VE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS. AND WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF WORK TO GO TO NARROW THE GAP, AND WE'RE HOPING THAT WE CAN RELY ON ICANN FOR A LITTLE BIT OF ASSISTANCE IN THAT RESPECT.
SO I JUST, AGAIN, WANTED TO RECORD THAT WE'RE PLEASED TO SEE THAT MOVING IN A GOOD DIRECTION.
AND THEN JUST TO ALSO PICK UP ON WHAT CHRIS SAID, WE HAVE HAD NOT ONLY SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH THE INTERIM REPORT OF THIS GNSO WORKING GROUP, WHICH HAS SIGNALED THAT IT WOULD COME OUT WITH RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH SQUARELY CONFLICT WITH GAC ADVICE, BUT ALSO IN THE PROCESS BREAKDOWN IN THE WORKING GROUP ITSELF. AND OBVIOUSLY THAT'S AN AREA WHERE I THINK WE'RE ALL LOOKING TO SEE WHAT UNFOLDS.
THANK YOU.
(Emphasis added)
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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Hi again, On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 7:26 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Where the major divisions have emerged are with regards to handle the "quirk of process" that have absolutely to do with improving access to the UDRP/URS for IGOs. Recommendation #4 has everything to do with how to handle the quirk of process for the benefit of *registrants*.
I of course meant to say: "Where the major divisions have emerged are with regards to **HOW TO** handle the "quirk of process" that have absolutely **NOTHING** to do with improving access to the UDRP/URS for IGOs." (** = corrections) Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
participants (3)
-
Corwin, Philip -
George Kirikos -
Paul Tattersfield