Dear All, Please find the attendance and MP3 recording along with the AC recording and chat below for the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting held on Thursday, 11 May 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Mp3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-pdp-11may17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p23uuk35dy3/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gns...> On page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_calendar-23nov&d=DQMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=wBBn3Ar2_mvUeGcM8rpOAyluUFEJFG5lASQ-cAccI2k&s=3BfiwO43tzwlrIbIyBY4Q-14zsFQCX518fLLR8GWR7I&e=> Attendees: George Kirikos – Individual Jay Chapman – Individual Paul Tattersfield – Individual Petter Rindforth – IPC (co-chair) Phil Corwin – BC (co-chair) Mason Cole – RySG Paul Keating - NCUC Apologies: ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Dennis Chang Berry Cobb Michelle DeSmyter ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/ Wiki Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/ow7fAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 11 May 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call on Thursday, 11 May 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_o... George Kirikos:Hi folks. Petter Rindforth:HI George & All George Kirikos:Hi Petter. Michelle DeSmyter 2:Hello Petter and George! George Kirikos:Hi Michelle. Petter Rindforth:Hi there - hope we will soon see more participants Michelle DeSmyter 2:I just sent out another reminder to the group :) Petter Rindforth:Thanks! Philip Corwin:I am waiting on operator George Kirikos:What's the quorum for a PDP? George Kirikos:Welcome, Phil. Michelle DeSmyter 2:I will let them know you are waiting for an operator to answer Philip Corwin:Thanks George Paul Tattersfield:Hello everyone George Kirikos:Welcome Paul. Petter Rindforth:waiting as well... Philip Corwin:On call now Petter Rindforth:same here Mary Wong:Hola Mary Wong:Steve Chan has his hand up George Kirikos:We've gone through much of it already. George Kirikos:This is better than Mary's regular connection. :-) Petter Rindforth:External legal advice on 6ter: OECD, UN, UPU, WHO & WIPO: regarding the consultation of a legal expert, my (Jonathan Passaro, OECD) IGO colleagues share the OECD’s concern that such an exercise will significantly prolong what has already been an extensive and resource-intensive process. George Kirikos:Page 10. George Kirikos:Oops, maybe 9. George Kirikos:Even page 7. George Kirikos:http://www.newyorkconvention.org/11165/web/files/original/1/5/15432.pdf Paul Keating:It applies to ANY arbitration. Mary Wong:It covers recognition by a national court of an arbitration decision. Paul Tattersfield:commercial disputes? George Kirikos:It seems to just be a general thing, not specific to IGOs, saying that arbitrations might be recognized. Note there are exceptions when it can't be recognized, e.g. Article V(2). Mary Wong:It is not specific to IGOs. Paul Keating:@Phil, This is a set of standards which if met means that the arbitration award can be enforced as a judgment in ANY country that has signed the convention. Nothing more. George Kirikos:All this says is that if both parties agree to arbitration, then courts can recognize the decisions. Nothing really magical. Mary Wong:We will circulate the treaty text as well as the previously-circulated UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. George Kirikos:Article 1.3 is interesting, as it mentions that States can limit it to commercial disputes. Petter Rindforth:Those offering the arbitration (some examples): https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__iccwbo.org_about-2Dus_w... , https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.swissarbitration.or... , https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.sccinstitute.com_&d=... , www.lcia.org/ Paul Tattersfield:George :) Petter Rindforth:As said, we already have the IGO input and majority support for arbitrration George Kirikos:The arbitration would also be assuming that the relevant "law" is the UDRP (with its remedies like transfer), vs. national courts who could interpret the ACPA, etc. George Kirikos:(with money damages, etc.) George Kirikos:A separate DRP would also be replacing national law with a process that takes away a registrant's rights, if it cannot be appealed to the courts. George Kirikos:Imposing binding arbitration means that the status quo, whereby the existence of a UDRP doesn't interfere with either party's legal rights, would be upset. George Kirikos:(i.e under the status quo, legal rights in national courts are not affected) George Kirikos:+1 Paul George Kirikos:It would be a contract of adhesion to impose arbitration for that 3rd party beneficiary. George Kirikos:What have registrants gained, in "agreeing" to such a bargain? Nothing. George Kirikos:Option 1 is the only solution to preserve the status quo legal rights of all parties. Mary Wong:@George, there are ways to deal with that - e.g. have the registrant choose whether to agree to binding arbitration when the complaint is filed. George Kirikos:@Mary: the registrant can agree to binding arbitration even without the UDRP. George Kirikos:However, the IGOs are talking about taking away that voluntary choice. George Kirikos:We already advised IGOs that they can use an assignee, agent, licensee. George Kirikos:It's the IGOs choice if they don't want to shield themselves. Mason Cole:All, I've been called away from this call. Speak to all soon. George Kirikos:Bye Mason. George Kirikos:We shouldn't let politics decide our analysis. Petter Rindforth:Whatever we decide, it much better to have a majority or full support for one solutions, rather than give it the the GNSO Council to decide Petter Rindforth:I agree on Option 2 George Kirikos:It wouldn't permit cybersquatting to continue. The governments or national authorities or IGOs could still use the courts (as they can if the UDRP didn't exist). George Kirikos:Right, Paul --- no TM holder would agree to binding arbitration, instead of accepting the courts. Jay Chapman:exactly, Paul George Kirikos:There's no principled reason to create a new policy for domains, unlike TMs themselves. Mary Wong:@Paul, yes - this kind of recommendation is within the remit of our WG. If we go with Option 2, all that you are suggesting can be specified. Mary Wong:@George, on your last point - if we go down that path, there will likely need to be some kind of notice to a registrant that if he/she is the respondent to a complaint, he/she may be asked to submit to binding arbitration. This is similar to what I said in chat earlier. George Kirikos:Option 2 doesn't even end the story, since a registrant could then sue the IGO in court, once it obtained the domain name. George Kirikos:Since IGOs are bound by the registrar-registrant agreement. George Kirikos:Option 2 would mean also having to modify every registration agreement?? George Kirikos:"GOVERNING LAW. THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND INTERPRETED AND ENFORCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF PROVINCE OF ONTARIO AND THE FEDERAL LAWS OF CANADA APPLICABLE THEREIN WITHOUT REFERENCE TO RULES GOVERNING CHOICE OF LAWS. ANY ACTION RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT MUST BE BROUGHT IN ONTARIO AND YOU IRREVOCABLY CONSENT TO THE JURISDICTION OF SUCH COURTS." George Kirikos:http://www.loffs.com/Domains/Legal/master.html George Kirikos:Is every registrar going to be forced to rewrite their agreements, to say disputes for IGOs are different? (if Option 2 is supported) George Kirikos:"Remedies of the panel" -- implies that the UDRP is the relevant law, which is untenable. George Kirikos:That staff report was already rejected by the community in the past. Which circumstances changed? Other than the introduction of the failed new gTLD program, nothing. Mary Wong:@George, it wasn't so much rejected as that the GNSO at the time did not proceed with a PDP in which that text would be discussed. As there was no PDP, there was no substantive discussion on it. George Kirikos:One other point I forgot to make ---- if the GAC is so concerned, why is it there are no ccTLDs we're aware of that create a special procedure for IGOs? George Kirikos:(GAC members could certainly impose such policies within their own countries, but don't) George Kirikos:Can we have a straw poll on Option 1 vs Option 2 at this point? George Kirikos:e.g. checkmark for Option 1, X for option 2? Mary Wong:@George, there are only 5 WG members on the call so not sure that would indicate much George Kirikos:(we know Phil is leaning to option 2) George Kirikos:Would be interesting to see where we stand, for those here. Mary Wong:@Petter, thanks - much appreciated ) Mary Wong::) George Kirikos:May 25th? Mary Wong:OK we will send a note to the mailing list George Kirikos:Bye folks. Paul Tattersfield:thanks all, bye everyone Paul Keating:thank you all. Good bye