IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP WG
Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group members, I write as the GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, to circulate a recommendation from Dr. Heather Forrest, GNSO Chair, which I endorse and support. She and I both hope that the proposed approach can be a useful path forward in assisting the group to ascertain and develop consensus (if any) on the six options under consideration relating to the handling of IGO jurisdictional immunity issues where a registrant who has lost a UDRP or URS proceeding against an IGO proceeds to file a court claim against that IGO. You will find details of the recommended approach in the attached Straw Man Paper (prepared by ICANN staff at Heather’s request) and accompanying Annex. I will be very grateful if everyone can take a moment to provide feedback as to whether you support the suggested approach or not, since this will allow us all to see if the approach may be workable. As the Working Group has a session coming up next week at ICANN61 (on Wednesday 14 March from 1700-1830 Puerto Rico time), the recommended approach also includes a suggestion for how to organize that session. In brief, the recommendation is: · Instead of a regular Working Group meeting or open community session, as has been the Working Group’s practice in recent ICANN meetings, the ICANN61 session will be run as a form of “open office hours”, where any and all Working Group members are invited to discuss their views and questions on the topic of IGO jurisdictional immunity with me, including (and especially) the six options. · ICANN policy staff will be on hand, to provide background information and process advice, and to assist me with taking accurate notes of the session. · The session will not be recorded, to encourage frank sharing of views (note: this is the model that was adopted for a different group relatively recently to try to break an impasse in that group). · Since not everyone will be able to attend the ICANN61 open office hours and, more importantly, because some Working Group members may prefer to provide their views in private, I will (with ICANN staff assistance) hold additional 1:1 or small group conversations (as you may prefer) after ICANN61 – this will most likely be done through Adobe Connect and/or a conference phone bridge. · Following these office hour sessions, I will (with ICANN staff assistance) prepare a report for the Working Group on the discussions that took place. That report should form the basis for an initial designation of consensus levels for each of the six options by Phil and Petter. · While a non-anonymous poll may be useful at some later stage in this iterative process of finding consensus (consistent with the requirements in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines), it is not necessary at this present time. Thank you – and on behalf of Heather, thank you also for taking the time to provide me with any and all feedback you may have in light of the procedural path forward noted in this message. Susan Kawaguchi Councilor for the Business Constituency
For those planning to participate remotely for Wednesday's call, I've consolidated the relevant links/passcodes and calculated the times for NYC and Los Angeles. NB: San Juan doesn't observe daylight savings time. https://www.timeanddate.com/time/change/puerto-rico/san-juan Given the time change this weekend in many parts of North America, care should be taken in computing the time in your own area. Wednesday March 14, 2018, 17:00-18:30 local time, Room 103 A (I assume this is us??) [listed on agenda as "IGO INGO Protections Discussion", rather than Curative Rights??) https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/ICANN61+GNSO+Remote+... vs. https://61.schedule.icann.org/meetings/647752 ] NYC time: 5 pm to 6:30 pm Los Angeles time: 2 pm to 3:30 pm Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/sju61-103a Audio Bridge Pass Code: IGO Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group members,
I write as the GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, to circulate a recommendation from Dr. Heather Forrest, GNSO Chair, which I endorse and support. She and I both hope that the proposed approach can be a useful path forward in assisting the group to ascertain and develop consensus (if any) on the six options under consideration relating to the handling of IGO jurisdictional immunity issues where a registrant who has lost a UDRP or URS proceeding against an IGO proceeds to file a court claim against that IGO.
You will find details of the recommended approach in the attached Straw Man Paper (prepared by ICANN staff at Heather’s request) and accompanying Annex. I will be very grateful if everyone can take a moment to provide feedback as to whether you support the suggested approach or not, since this will allow us all to see if the approach may be workable.
As the Working Group has a session coming up next week at ICANN61 (on Wednesday 14 March from 1700-1830 Puerto Rico time), the recommended approach also includes a suggestion for how to organize that session. In brief, the recommendation is:
· Instead of a regular Working Group meeting or open community session, as has been the Working Group’s practice in recent ICANN meetings, the ICANN61 session will be run as a form of “open office hours”, where any and all Working Group members are invited to discuss their views and questions on the topic of IGO jurisdictional immunity with me, including (and especially) the six options.
· ICANN policy staff will be on hand, to provide background information and process advice, and to assist me with taking accurate notes of the session.
· The session will not be recorded, to encourage frank sharing of views (note: this is the model that was adopted for a different group relatively recently to try to break an impasse in that group).
· Since not everyone will be able to attend the ICANN61 open office hours and, more importantly, because some Working Group members may prefer to provide their views in private, I will (with ICANN staff assistance) hold additional 1:1 or small group conversations (as you may prefer) after ICANN61 – this will most likely be done through Adobe Connect and/or a conference phone bridge.
· Following these office hour sessions, I will (with ICANN staff assistance) prepare a report for the Working Group on the discussions that took place. That report should form the basis for an initial designation of consensus levels for each of the six options by Phil and Petter.
· While a non-anonymous poll may be useful at some later stage in this iterative process of finding consensus (consistent with the requirements in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines), it is not necessary at this present time.
Thank you – and on behalf of Heather, thank you also for taking the time to provide me with any and all feedback you may have in light of the procedural path forward noted in this message.
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
This hadn't been circulated to the IGO PDP mailing list yet, but on the RPM PDP mailing list it was noted that the Adobe Connect has been suspended for security reasons, see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-March/002797.html So anyone who was planning to talk to Susan remotely today for "office hours" https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-March/001095.html should consider using telephone/audio dial-in, presumably. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:48 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
For those planning to participate remotely for Wednesday's call, I've consolidated the relevant links/passcodes and calculated the times for NYC and Los Angeles.
NB: San Juan doesn't observe daylight savings time.
https://www.timeanddate.com/time/change/puerto-rico/san-juan
Given the time change this weekend in many parts of North America, care should be taken in computing the time in your own area.
Wednesday March 14, 2018, 17:00-18:30 local time, Room 103 A (I assume this is us??)
[listed on agenda as "IGO INGO Protections Discussion", rather than Curative Rights??)
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/ICANN61+GNSO+Remote+...
vs.
https://61.schedule.icann.org/meetings/647752 ]
NYC time: 5 pm to 6:30 pm Los Angeles time: 2 pm to 3:30 pm
Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/sju61-103a Audio Bridge Pass Code: IGO
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group members,
I write as the GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, to circulate a recommendation from Dr. Heather Forrest, GNSO Chair, which I endorse and support. She and I both hope that the proposed approach can be a useful path forward in assisting the group to ascertain and develop consensus (if any) on the six options under consideration relating to the handling of IGO jurisdictional immunity issues where a registrant who has lost a UDRP or URS proceeding against an IGO proceeds to file a court claim against that IGO.
You will find details of the recommended approach in the attached Straw Man Paper (prepared by ICANN staff at Heather’s request) and accompanying Annex. I will be very grateful if everyone can take a moment to provide feedback as to whether you support the suggested approach or not, since this will allow us all to see if the approach may be workable.
As the Working Group has a session coming up next week at ICANN61 (on Wednesday 14 March from 1700-1830 Puerto Rico time), the recommended approach also includes a suggestion for how to organize that session. In brief, the recommendation is:
· Instead of a regular Working Group meeting or open community session, as has been the Working Group’s practice in recent ICANN meetings, the ICANN61 session will be run as a form of “open office hours”, where any and all Working Group members are invited to discuss their views and questions on the topic of IGO jurisdictional immunity with me, including (and especially) the six options.
· ICANN policy staff will be on hand, to provide background information and process advice, and to assist me with taking accurate notes of the session.
· The session will not be recorded, to encourage frank sharing of views (note: this is the model that was adopted for a different group relatively recently to try to break an impasse in that group).
· Since not everyone will be able to attend the ICANN61 open office hours and, more importantly, because some Working Group members may prefer to provide their views in private, I will (with ICANN staff assistance) hold additional 1:1 or small group conversations (as you may prefer) after ICANN61 – this will most likely be done through Adobe Connect and/or a conference phone bridge.
· Following these office hour sessions, I will (with ICANN staff assistance) prepare a report for the Working Group on the discussions that took place. That report should form the basis for an initial designation of consensus levels for each of the six options by Phil and Petter.
· While a non-anonymous poll may be useful at some later stage in this iterative process of finding consensus (consistent with the requirements in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines), it is not necessary at this present time.
Thank you – and on behalf of Heather, thank you also for taking the time to provide me with any and all feedback you may have in light of the procedural path forward noted in this message.
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 George, all, Adobe Connect will indeed not be available for the remainder of ICANN61. However, and apologies if this was unclear, but Adobe Connect had not been intended to be used for the "office hours." I would draw your attention to Mary's email, where she noted that: "To facilitate the office hours, and if you are interested in meeting with Susan, please be so kind as to fill out this Doodle poll to indicate which 10-minute slot you prefer: https://doodle.com/poll/ikwa9hp8cd7sar4h. If you will not be physically here but nevertheless wish to meet with Susan, please email me or Steve privately to provide us with a phone number that Susan can reach you at, for your preferred 10-minute slot." As also mentioned, if the time slot for this session is inconvenient for any WG members, additional time will be allocated as necessary. Best, Steve On 3/14/18, 9:56 AM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote: This hadn't been circulated to the IGO PDP mailing list yet, but on the RPM PDP mailing list it was noted that the Adobe Connect has been suspended for security reasons, see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-March/002797.html So anyone who was planning to talk to Susan remotely today for "office hours" https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-March/001095.html should consider using telephone/audio dial-in, presumably. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 5:48 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: > For those planning to participate remotely for Wednesday's call, I've > consolidated the relevant links/passcodes and calculated the times for > NYC and Los Angeles. > > NB: San Juan doesn't observe daylight savings time. > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.timeanddate.com_tim... > > Given the time change this weekend in many parts of North America, > care should be taken in computing the time in your own area. > > Wednesday March 14, 2018, 17:00-18:30 local time, Room 103 A (I assume > this is us??) > > [listed on agenda as "IGO INGO Protections Discussion", rather than > Curative Rights??) > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis... > > vs. > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__61.schedule.icann.org_m... ] > > NYC time: 5 pm to 6:30 pm > Los Angeles time: 2 pm to 3:30 pm > > Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/sju61-103a > Audio Bridge Pass Code: IGO > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... > > > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com> wrote: >> Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group >> members, >> >> >> >> I write as the GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, to circulate a >> recommendation from Dr. Heather Forrest, GNSO Chair, which I endorse and >> support. She and I both hope that the proposed approach can be a useful path >> forward in assisting the group to ascertain and develop consensus (if any) >> on the six options under consideration relating to the handling of IGO >> jurisdictional immunity issues where a registrant who has lost a UDRP or URS >> proceeding against an IGO proceeds to file a court claim against that IGO. >> >> >> >> You will find details of the recommended approach in the attached Straw Man >> Paper (prepared by ICANN staff at Heather’s request) and accompanying Annex. >> I will be very grateful if everyone can take a moment to provide feedback as >> to whether you support the suggested approach or not, since this will allow >> us all to see if the approach may be workable. >> >> >> >> As the Working Group has a session coming up next week at ICANN61 (on >> Wednesday 14 March from 1700-1830 Puerto Rico time), the recommended >> approach also includes a suggestion for how to organize that session. In >> brief, the recommendation is: >> >> >> >> · Instead of a regular Working Group meeting or open community >> session, as has been the Working Group’s practice in recent ICANN meetings, >> the ICANN61 session will be run as a form of “open office hours”, where any >> and all Working Group members are invited to discuss their views and >> questions on the topic of IGO jurisdictional immunity with me, including >> (and especially) the six options. >> >> · ICANN policy staff will be on hand, to provide background >> information and process advice, and to assist me with taking accurate notes >> of the session. >> >> · The session will not be recorded, to encourage frank sharing of >> views (note: this is the model that was adopted for a different group >> relatively recently to try to break an impasse in that group). >> >> · Since not everyone will be able to attend the ICANN61 open office >> hours and, more importantly, because some Working Group members may prefer >> to provide their views in private, I will (with ICANN staff assistance) hold >> additional 1:1 or small group conversations (as you may prefer) after >> ICANN61 – this will most likely be done through Adobe Connect and/or a >> conference phone bridge. >> >> · Following these office hour sessions, I will (with ICANN staff >> assistance) prepare a report for the Working Group on the discussions that >> took place. That report should form the basis for an initial designation of >> consensus levels for each of the six options by Phil and Petter. >> >> · While a non-anonymous poll may be useful at some later stage in this >> iterative process of finding consensus (consistent with the requirements in >> the GNSO Working Group Guidelines), it is not necessary at this present >> time. >> >> >> >> Thank you – and on behalf of Heather, thank you also for taking the time to >> provide me with any and all feedback you may have in light of the procedural >> path forward noted in this message. >> >> >> 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
Hello all, Sorry for answering so late by I’ve been travelling and on vacations till last Sunday. Although I was able to participate in ICANN 61, I arrived on Sunday and had to leave early on Wednesday so I wasn’t able to be at the WG’s meeting. I am Ok with Heather’s recommendation for the WG, I still think that the GNSO Working Group Guidelines are very clear on how to run a WG and on the methodology to reach consensus and we should abide by it. I don’t think we need a facilitator to help the Chairmen with the WG, nor do I see any problem with an anonymous poll but would agree to non-anonymous poll. I think that some members of the group, with different opinions, have reach a point where they don’t have room for more negotiations so we should try to decide if we have Consensus or Strong Support but significant opposition. I continue to support Option 3, as it seems to satisfy some of the requirements requested by the IGOs. Best regards, Osvaldo Novoa ISPCP Constituency De: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Susan Kawaguchi Enviado el: viernes, 09 de marzo de 2018 03:35 p.m. Para: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org CC: gnso-chairs@icann.org; Heather Forrest Asunto: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP WG Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group members, I write as the GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, to circulate a recommendation from Dr. Heather Forrest, GNSO Chair, which I endorse and support. She and I both hope that the proposed approach can be a useful path forward in assisting the group to ascertain and develop consensus (if any) on the six options under consideration relating to the handling of IGO jurisdictional immunity issues where a registrant who has lost a UDRP or URS proceeding against an IGO proceeds to file a court claim against that IGO. You will find details of the recommended approach in the attached Straw Man Paper (prepared by ICANN staff at Heather’s request) and accompanying Annex. I will be very grateful if everyone can take a moment to provide feedback as to whether you support the suggested approach or not, since this will allow us all to see if the approach may be workable. As the Working Group has a session coming up next week at ICANN61 (on Wednesday 14 March from 1700-1830 Puerto Rico time), the recommended approach also includes a suggestion for how to organize that session. In brief, the recommendation is: • Instead of a regular Working Group meeting or open community session, as has been the Working Group’s practice in recent ICANN meetings, the ICANN61 session will be run as a form of “open office hours”, where any and all Working Group members are invited to discuss their views and questions on the topic of IGO jurisdictional immunity with me, including (and especially) the six options. • ICANN policy staff will be on hand, to provide background information and process advice, and to assist me with taking accurate notes of the session. • The session will not be recorded, to encourage frank sharing of views (note: this is the model that was adopted for a different group relatively recently to try to break an impasse in that group). • Since not everyone will be able to attend the ICANN61 open office hours and, more importantly, because some Working Group members may prefer to provide their views in private, I will (with ICANN staff assistance) hold additional 1:1 or small group conversations (as you may prefer) after ICANN61 – this will most likely be done through Adobe Connect and/or a conference phone bridge. • Following these office hour sessions, I will (with ICANN staff assistance) prepare a report for the Working Group on the discussions that took place. That report should form the basis for an initial designation of consensus levels for each of the six options by Phil and Petter. • While a non-anonymous poll may be useful at some later stage in this iterative process of finding consensus (consistent with the requirements in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines), it is not necessary at this present time. Thank you – and on behalf of Heather, thank you also for taking the time to provide me with any and all feedback you may have in light of the procedural path forward noted in this message. Susan Kawaguchi Councilor for the Business Constituency ________________________________ 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.
participants (4)
-
George Kirikos -
Novoa, Osvaldo -
Steve Chan -
Susan Kawaguchi