Dear members of the GNSO’s IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG: Thank you for your continued interest in the topic and your active participation this week! Also, thanks to Mary and Steve for your updates and for reminding us about the 2007 Staff Report on a Draft IGO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Procedure. That points out that, four months into our work, we continue to focus on and review additional materials related to it. It is always good to be reminded on what has already been done/discussed on a specific topic, so that we can both avoid mistakes and not support what we believe is not necessary, as well as proceed with ideas we support and build on them with improvements and refinements. As you all know, we have this week sent out a letter to all GNSO Stakeholder Group/Constituency Chair’s with four specific questions and a request for replies by late January. We certainly need to collect those inputs/replies before we make any conclusions and/or start working on any initial (preliminary) Report. We also remind you that there are discussions going on with IGOs, through the GAC, and hopefully we can also get inputs/clarifications from these parties of interest before we come to any conclusions. We, as your Co-Chairs, still suggest that we meet next Wednesday to summarize the comments so far, and then resume discussions in early January. Further, we believe it is too early to take votes or straw polls regarding IGOs, as that would violate the respect of those GNSO Stakeholder Groups, etc. that have now actively begun the work to reply to our four questions. We also believe that, given the sensitivity of this issue for ICANN’s Board, GAC, and GNSO Council, any final report and the conclusions underlying it must be based on thorough and well-documented review of all available materials if it is to settle this matter with reasonable finality. Additional investigation and discussion of the nature and force of the rights conferred on IGOs by Article 6ter, the ability and degree to which IGOs have registered their full names and/or acronyms as trademarks, and the manner in which various nations have implemented their Article 6ter protection responsibilities need to be undertaken to provide a solid basis for any final conclusions and report. We strongly suggest that no decisions be made until we have received inputs from all groups of interest. We also note that this WG has a facilitated face-to-face meeting scheduled in Singapore on Friday, February 13th; depending on our progress, it can serve as a forum to discuss elements of an initial report, or of further work to be done in advance of reaching final conclusions and reporting thereon. We welcome your feedback on these views, both by e-mail and during pour least call of 2014 taking place on Wednesday, December 17th. Best regards, Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth -- 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