Hi again, It looks like "auto-correct" automatically fixed some of the "typos" I was trying to point out in my post, LOL! e.g. in #1, the typo was "organiations" -- anyhow, it should be clear to staff what I meant. :-) Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 1:52 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:

Hi folks,

Here are my comments on the latest draft.

(all page numbers are for the PDF version, the page numbers differ slightly in the MS Word version)

1. Page 3: section 1.1, 1st paragraph, 3rd line, typo: "organizations" should be "organizations"

2. Page 3: section 1.1, 2nd paragraph, 2nd line, "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy" is actually *NOT* the full name of the UDRP. It should instead be Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy, see:

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en

3. Page 4: Recommendation #4, 1st paragraph, 2nd line: it'd make more sense to move "(but not INGOs)" directly after "which IGOs" in the first line, as it would read better, i.e. "which IGOs (but not INGOs) may claim….."

*** NB: If this change is made, it may need to be changed elsewhere in the document too ***

4. page 8: add new line between (4) and (5), to match the spacing of the others

5. page 14, recommendation #3, 2nd paragraph (i.e. the unbolded section): I would suggest flipping the order of "use and registration" to become "registration and use" in both the 1st and 3rd lines, as that's what folks are accustomed to (and to be consistent with the order in the bolded section in the last line of the paragraph directly above).

6. page 14, recommendation #4, 2nd line: delete the *second* "(but not INGOs)" after "certain circumstances". It seems this instance already followed my suggestion #3 above, about moving "but not INGOs" direction after "IGOs" in the first line.

7. page 27, section 3.3, first paragraph: would move "(including the International Red Cross….under a previous GNSO PDP)" up, to directly after "INGOs" in line 3 of that paragraph.

8. page 32, 3rd paragraph: as noted earlier, it's not correct that no GAC member elected to become a WG member --- Gary Campbell is from the GAC, according to:

https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48347895

9. page 36, 3rd column, top; we should copy the same text from the 3rd column of page 37 at the top, i.e. "Allowing an IGO to file via a representative third party" to that section as well (i.e. not just the rapid relief, but also the UDRP version). Also, the 2nd column of page 36 has "Policy Guidance document to be developed --- that should be copied above too. Or, as noted by Phil Corwin, comment [A7], perhaps add a new row in the table to handle both. Comment [A9] is only applying to the rapid relief section at present.

10. page 41, section 5.1, first paragraph, line 4, typo, change "wheter" to "whether"

11. page 42, section 5.2, 4th bullet point, typo, change "disctinction" to "distinction"

12. page 43, section 6.1, first paragraph, 2nd line, typo, change "condcut" to "conduct"

13. page 45: should double-check the *official* name of each constituency, as there are slight variations, e.g. at:

http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies

The draft template is using slightly different language for:

- RrSG ("Registrar" should be plural "Registrars") - RySG ("Registry" should be plural "Registries") - NPOC ("Not For Profit Operational Concerns")

14. page 46, section 7.1, 3rd bullet point, typo for "Registries"

15. I stopped my review at page 60. As discussed previously and on the call, the Swaine document should be reproduced verbatim, with his original footnote numbering, in its own separate section (can still be within the same final PDF, though).

Happy Holidays!

Sincerely,

George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:

...

Hello everyone,

As Phil notes, the Working Group members who were on the call that just ended have agreed on the following timeline for the publication of our Initial Report:

· Thursday 22 December 2016 – deadline for submitting any other comments or edits you may have on the draft that was circulated (attached again here as a PDF document). Please send your comments and edits to this email list to allow all other members to view them, and to ensure that we do not lose anyone’s comments on what is a fairly long document.

· End of first week of January 2017 – staff to circulate an updated version of the draft, as a proposed final version of the Initial Report.

· End of second week of January 2017 (7 days from circulation of the proposed final document) – deadline for Working Group members to send final comments (which are expected to be mostly typographical or editorial at that stage).

· Beginning of third week of January 2017 (latest) – staff to publish Initial Report for public comment, for the minimum mandatory 40-day period (note that the Working Group can decide to extend the duration of the comment period if there is a request from the community to do so)

· Late February 2017 – close of public comment period (unless extended).

· 11-16 March 2017 – ICANN58 in Copenhagen; Working Group to hold open session to discuss its review of public comments and any potential changes to its preliminary recommendations with the community.

· Following ICANN58 – Working Group to complete Final Report and submit it to the GNSO Council for the Council’s review and action.

The Working Group co-chairs will determine, in consultation with staff and the Working Group, whether to hold a webinar (i.e. an information session) 2-3 weeks after the publication of the Initial Report, to explain the preliminary recommendations and take questions from the community.

The Working Group co-chairs will also determine the date of the next Working Group meeting. This is likely to occur toward the end of the public comment period, unless a number of substantive comments are sent in early on.

Thanks to everyone for all the work that has gone into this PDP – staff would like to take this opportunity to also wish you all a very happy new year!

Cheers

Mary

Regarding Paul Tattersfield's comments for Page 3, I think the second part of the wording should stand. i.e. for "might own trademarks" vs. "may have registered trademarks" we should lean towards the current wording, because (a) unregistered trademarks were still protected via UDRP/URS, and (b) one of the main conclusions in this PDP was to clarify that even Article 6ter registrations would/should satisfy the standing requirements of the UDRP/URS, and strictly speaking those aren't always exactly equivalent to trademarks (they're more of a limited blocking right). Or, perhaps the wording could change from "might own trademarks" to "might have trademarks" (i.e. to cover both registered and unregistered scenarios more clearly, if "ownership" implies registered marks alone). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote:

Page 3 Executive Summary – 2nd paragraph Last sentence

*In addition, both processes were originally designed to be mechanisms to protect the rights of trademark owners, and while some IGOs and INGOs might own trademarks in either their organizational names or acronyms or both, this is not necessarily true in all cases.*

Suggested new wording

In addition, both processes were designed to be mechanisms to protect the marks of rights holders, and while some IGOs and INGOs may have registered trademarks in either their organizational names or acronyms or both, this is not necessarily true in all cases.

Notes:

1) Remove the word ‘originally’ as the process has not changed since inception.

2) UDRP and URS are designed to protect the marks of all rights holders by preventing the underlying goods and services from being infringed. This is an incredibly important distinction and failing to understand and make this distinction has real world inequitable consequences.

3) Again the words “might own trademarks” is misleading in this context and should be replaced with “may have registered”.

A further few minor changes:

Page 10 [Capitalization]

4. The WG found that, as of end-2015, the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) list of non-governmental organizations in consultative status consists of nearly 4,000 organizations, of which 147 organizations were in general consultative status, 2,774 in special consultative status, and 979 on the Roster. The WG notes that there might be many more organizations not presently on the ECOSOC list who might claim the right to utilize any new curative rights process created for INGOs. The WG felt that the sheer scale of INGOs, in combination with the factors cited above, weighed against the creation of a special DRP for INGOs. especially as they could not be readily differentiated from other private parties, including other non-profit organizations.

Page 12 [Plural/singular] Subsequently, interim second-level protections for certain RC and IOC and for a specific list of IGO names and acronyms provided by the GAC was granted in response to advice from the GAC.

It is important to note that the second-level protections noted above were granted on an interim basis to allow new gTLDs to begin launching while policy development and consultations continued on the topic of what would be the appropriate second level protections for RC and IOC names and acronyms, and IGO acronyms.

Page 18 [Singular/plural]

For example, certain jurisdictions may have legislative language which limit the extent of IGO jurisdictional immunity to the “privileges and immunities as are reasonably necessary for the fulfilment of their functions”.

Page 29 [Remove comma]

The WG’s agreed text for its preliminary recommendation, the two options under consideration, and further elaboration on the nature of Professor Swaine’s expert views44, are set out in fuller detail under Recommendation #4 in Section 2, above.

Page 32 [Spelling]

In June 2015, the co-chairs of this WG met with the GAC Chair and two GAC vice-chairs at the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires to discuss the progress of work on IGO curative rights protections and to encourage participation in the WG by GAC members; agin, no GAC member elected to become a WG member. In July 2015, representatives of the IGO Small Group

Page 34 [Add space] The following is a comparative table showing the differences between the specific details of the IGO Small Group Proposal concerning curative rights and the WG’s agreed preliminary recommendations following its review of the Proposal, as well as notes on the WG’s rationale for its decisions. The community is invited to comment on the recommendations and notes, and all input provided will be taken into account by the WGin preparing its final recommendations.

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:

...

Hello everyone,

As Phil notes, the Working Group members who were on the call that just ended have agreed on the following timeline for the publication of our Initial Report:

· *Thursday 22 December 2016 – deadline for submitting any other comments or edits you may have on the draft* that was circulated (attached again here as a PDF document). Please send your comments and edits to this email list to allow all other members to view them, and to ensure that we do not lose anyone’s comments on what is a fairly long document.

· End of first week of January 2017 – staff to circulate an updated version of the draft, as a proposed final version of the Initial Report.

· End of second week of January 2017 (7 days from circulation of the proposed final document) – deadline for Working Group members to send final comments (which are expected to be mostly typographical or editorial at that stage).

· Beginning of third week of January 2017 (latest) – staff to publish Initial Report for public comment, for the minimum mandatory 40-day period (note that the Working Group can decide to extend the duration of the comment period if there is a request from the community to do so)

· Late February 2017 – close of public comment period (unless extended).

· 11-16 March 2017 – ICANN58 in Copenhagen; Working Group to hold open session to discuss its review of public comments and any potential changes to its preliminary recommendations with the community.

· Following ICANN58 – Working Group to complete Final Report and submit it to the GNSO Council for the Council’s review and action.

The Working Group co-chairs will determine, in consultation with staff and the Working Group, whether to hold a webinar (i.e. an information session) 2-3 weeks after the publication of the Initial Report, to explain the preliminary recommendations and take questions from the community.

The Working Group co-chairs will also determine the date of the next Working Group meeting. This is likely to occur toward the end of the public comment period, unless a number of substantive comments are sent in early on.

Thanks to everyone for all the work that has gone into this PDP – staff would like to take this opportunity to also wish you all a very happy new year!

Cheers

Mary

*From: *<gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin < psc@vlaw-dc.com> *Date: *Friday, December 16, 2016 at 01:35 *To: *Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" < gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] My apologies for today's call

No need to, Lori, as the call just ended.

Staff will be circulating an email on next steps and publication plans.

*All WG members will have until one week from today, 12/22, to suggest any final edits of the draft, and should do so by email to the entire list.*

Best regards, Philip

*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*

*Virtualaw LLC*

*1155 F Street, NW*

*Suite 1050*

*Washington, DC 20004*

*202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct*

*202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax*

*202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell*

*Twitter: @VlawDC*

*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*

*From:* gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org [mailto: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lori Schulman *Sent:* Thursday, December 15, 2016 12:14 PM *To:* gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] My apologies for today's call

I have 2 working group calls scheduled at the same time. I will try to jump on to the last half of the CRP call.

Happy Holiday!

Lori Schulman

Senior Director, Internet Policy

*International Trademark Association*

1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 200

Washington DC, USA

+1-202-704-0408 <(202)%20704-0408>, skype: lsschulman

www.inta.org[inta.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.inta.org_&d=DgMFAg&c...>

Find us on: [image: escription: Description: Description: cid:F361C18F-02FE-4CF0-A43E-AA] *Twitter[twitter.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_INTA&d=DgMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=5t4CGDr1g53DS_E9Rld6ffXuWGAx2hSevednUJrBp9E&s=nRDnPpGWCYxVHTD3u24nbVb6ZiytMqZTet8w82ctoio&e=>* [image: escription: Description: LinkedIn] LinkedIn[linkedin.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_groupIn...> [image: escription: Description: facebook-logo (2)] Facebook [facebook.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_home.ph...>

[image: escription: Description: pnpb_sig.png]

------------------------------

No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com[avg.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=DgMFAg&c=F...> Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4664/13557 - Release Date: 12/08/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.

_______________________________________________ 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