April 2026 - Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt

ICANN IGO-INGO Curative Rights IRT: Important Information on Next Steps
by Peter Eakin April 24, 2026

April 24, 2026

Dear IRT, Thank you for your responses to my ‘Request for Input’ email on 10 April. After reviewing your replies, it is apparent that although the IRT does not collectively agree on the approach set out in the most recently circulated <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SApPdhA4oYYxtD7XjX6Fb8FL5SWqZTe72zCK51P…> draft updates, there is support to explore ‘Item 2: Additional Proposal regarding IGO Consent to Arbitration’ in my email as a potential compromise. To recap, this proposal involves permitting a respondent to elect to use the EPDP arbitral process once a UDRP/URS complaint is filed. However, the IGO complainant would not be required to consent to resolution via the new arbitral proceeding until after a decision has been issued. Staff are committed to making every effort to achieve a mutually acceptable solution, taking into account all feedback received while also acknowledging the time pressure the IRT is working under. In order to restore momentum to the implementation, we will therefore develop updated policy language reflecting this compromise proposal. We intend to share these drafts with the IRT in May before publishing them for public comment. While the IRT has yet to discuss the new proposal in detail, staff believe that including it in the policy language provided for public comment, as opposed to issuing the drafts circulated before ICANN85, would present a more accurate and transparent portrayal of the IRT’s current position to the community. This will help solicit more informed and relevant input, which in turn should allow us to complete our work more quickly. Opening a public comment proceeding on this basis will not prevent the IRT from discussing this proposal and other related issues in more detail during the course of the proceeding, including at ICANN86, nor preclude changes to the draft language once it has concluded. Staff will provide the IRT with new drafts as soon as is practicable, taking into account the current heavy workload, including preparations for the Contracted Parties Summit and the imminent launch of the New gTLD Program: 2026 Round. I will also be in touch with you soon regarding further meetings. Best wishes, Peter Peter Eakin Policy Research Specialist, Policy Research & Stakeholder Programs Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: + 32 493 547 913 Office: 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt. 1, Brussels B-1040, Belgium

1 0

ICANN IGO-INGO IRT: Request for Input and Proposal
by Peter Eakin April 16, 2026

April 16, 2026

Dear IRT, Thank you for those who attended our call yesterday. It was a lively, interesting discussion. I urge those unable to attend to review the recording on the meeting wiki page [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYB…>. I wish to bring two items to your attention: Item 1: Request for Input As I requested at the end of the call, to best help staff progress this project we would like all IRT members, including those who spoke on yesterday’s call, to submit answers to the following questions on the email list. Feel free to include additional thoughts/information that you feel may be useful. When submitting your response, it would helpful if you set out your argument supported by reference to the underlying principles and logic on which it is based. Clarifying the ‘why’ behind your position – e.g. policy interpretation concerns, practical impacts/problems - will make it easier for staff to identify where views algin or differ: * Do you believe the IRT is resolving a policy disagreement (e.g. how to interpret the Final Report/WG intent) or an implementation disagreement (how to address the pre-determination use of the new arbitral mechanism in the UDRP Rules or elsewhere)? * Should the EPDP developed arbitral mechanism be available for use before a UDRP or URS determination? Please explain why you disagree with the alternative point of view (whether for or against pre-determination availability) * What do you believe are the practical differences, if any, between potential use of the EPDP arbitral mechanism and general arbitration in a pre UDRP or URS determination context? If parties already have the right to arbitrate privately at any time, what are the benefits/objections to allowing this via the EPDP arbitral mechanism? * Why is it important that pre-determination use of the EPDP developed arbitral mechanism be addressed/not be addressed by ICANN? If it should/can be addressed, how/where should this be accomplished? * Do you consider any of the 4 options advanced by ICANN in the options paper<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IWMosNH3O8zLAoXhzOXc_lMzz7PM6j4ioRVyunC…> as offering, or forming the basis of, a path forward on this issue? Please submit your responses as soon as possible, by Wednesday 15 May. Item 2: Additional Proposal regarding IGO Consent to Arbitration On yesterday’s call, an IGO representative noted that one of the main concerns with allowing pre-determination use of the EPDP arbitral process was that, under the EPDP recommendations, by filing a UDRP, IGOs must consent to arbitration as a challenge to a UDRP/URS decision. However, IGOs object to being required to consent to a ‘parallel’ arbitration that takes place before a UDRP/URS decision has been reached, as is the case in the most recent draft updates . Following internal discussions, staff would like to put the following proposal to the IGOs/wider IRT for your consideration as a possible compromise: * The new Arbitral Proceeding exists and can be filed by a registrant at any time after a UDRP/URS is filed. * However, an IGO is not required to consent to resolution via arbitral proceeding until after a UDRP/URS decision is issued. * A Registrant can elect arbitration once a complaint is filed, and the IGO at that time can decide whether to agree to consent to arbitration or not. * In this scenario, there is no direct impact to the UDRP or URS proceeding unless the parties elect to terminate the proceeding We are interested to hear your thoughts on this proposal as soon as possible. Best wishes, Peter Peter Eakin Policy Research Specialist, Policy Research & Stakeholder Programs Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: + 32 493 547 913 Office: 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt. 1, Brussels B-1040, Belgium

6 8

FW: IGO-INGO Curative Rights IRT
by Ashcraft, Damon April 14, 2026

April 14, 2026

All, Just sent the email below to Council and will update them on where things stand on Thursday’s meeting. Let me know if you have questions. Damon J. Damon Ashcraft , P.C. O: 602.382.6389<tel:602.382.6389> | M: 602.510.1640<tel:602.510.1640> dashcraft(a)swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com> SNELL & WILMER swlaw.com<https://us.content.exclaimer.net?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.swlaw.com%2F&tenanti…> | LinkedIn<https://us.content.exclaimer.net?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompa…> One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004‑2556 Albuquerque | Boise | Dallas | Denver | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Los Cabos | Orange County | Palo Alto | Phoenix | Portland | Reno-Tahoe | Salt Lake City | San Diego | Seattle | Tucson | Washington, D.C. This email and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone. Please notify the sender by return email and delete this email as well as any attachments from your system. From: Ashcraft, Damon Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 9:25 AM To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: Peter Eakin <peter.eakin(a)icann.org> Subject: IGO-INGO Curative Rights IRT Dear Fellow Councilors, I’m writing in my role as Council Liaison to provide a brief update on a disagreement that has emerged within the IGO-INGO Curative Rights IRT following the January Council meeting and Resolution<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions/2020-current>. To recap the context, the EPDP<https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/generic-names-supporting-organization-co…> recommendations on Specific Curative Rights Protections for International Government Organizations (IGOs) were designed to resolve a long-standing barrier to IGO use of the UDRP or URS because of their inability to submit to court jurisdiction without compromising their legal immunities. The agreed solution was to provide registrants with an alternative to court proceedings: a new, binding specialized arbitration mechanism that registrants may use when a UDRP or URS proceeding is filed by an IGO. In January, the Council was asked to clarify the timing of this mechanism, and whether the EPDP Recommendations should be read as limiting its availability until after a UDRP or URS proceeding has been concluded. As you will remember, the Council passed a resolution affirming that the intent of the recommendations was to allow respondents in an IGO-related proceeding to voluntarily leverage arbitration or alternative dispute resolution methods at any time once a proceeding has commenced - even prior to a final UDRP or URS decision. However, since the passing of the Resolution, IGO representatives within the IRT have voiced strong objections. They contend that allowing access to the new specialized arbitration mechanism before a UDRP or URS determination oversteps the original policy scope and should not be permitted. Neither do they regard the Council Resolution as addressing this scenario. Instead, IGO representatives read the resolution as confirming only that arbitration proceedings are possible at any time, which should remain separate and unregulated within the existing UDRP/URS framework as is the case at present. However, other members of the IRT believe this is a misreading of the intent of the EPDP and Resolution that could ultimately disadvantage respondents in these disputes. ICANN staff are actively supporting the IRT to find a way forward and are currently exploring various implementation options to resolve this issue. We aren’t at a point where a formal request for Council intervention is needed, but I wanted to put this on your radar now because of the significance of this implementation for the wider IGO workstream and acronym release. I will provide a further update on Thursday during AOB. Thanks, Damon J. Damon Ashcraft , P.C. O: 602.382.6389<tel:602.382.6389> | M: 602.510.1640<tel:602.510.1640> dashcraft(a)swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com> SNELL & WILMER swlaw.com<https://us.content.exclaimer.net?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.swlaw.com%2F&tenanti…> | LinkedIn<https://us.content.exclaimer.net?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompa…> One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004‑2556 Albuquerque | Boise | Dallas | Denver | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Los Cabos | Orange County | Palo Alto | Phoenix | Portland | Reno-Tahoe | Salt Lake City | San Diego | Seattle | Tucson | Washington, D.C. This email and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone. Please notify the sender by return email and delete this email as well as any attachments from your system.

1 0

Post-call | IGO INGO Curative Rights IRT | Meeting #20| 9 April 2026
by Renate De Wulf April 9, 2026

April 9, 2026

Dear All, The recordings for Meeting #20 of the IGO INGO Curative Rights IRT held on Thursday, 9 April 2026 are published on the meeting wiki page<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYBdP>. These include: * Attendance * Audio recording * Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript, chat) Best regards, Renate

1 0

ICANN IGO-INGO IRT: ZOOM details for today's meeting
by Peter Eakin April 9, 2026

April 9, 2026

Dear All, In case you missed Renate’s email on Tuesday, please see the joining details for today’s meeting. Please update your calendar invites if you haven’t already, as the original was issued without this information: Meeting #20 of the IGO-INGO Curative Rights IRT will be held on 9 April 2026 at 12:00-13:00 UTC [local time [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/2c7yes9z__;!!PtGJab4!6ySMJdu…>]. The final agenda will be posted here [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYB…>. Before the meeting, please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>, the ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy<https://www.icann.org/en/governance/documents/icann-community-anti-harassme…> and the ICANN Community Participant Code of Conduct<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-icann-community-partici…>. We would like to remind participants that to ensure transparency of participation in ICANN's multistakeholder model, we ask that you sign in to Zoom sessions using your full name. For example, First Name and Last Name or Surname. You may be removed from the session if you do not sign in using your full name. Zoom information: Join the Zoom Webinar directly (recommended): https://icann.zoom.us/j/98045783633?pwd=r1KFqiOWf27TryA5XkPPONZMui9j6s.1 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/98045783633?pwd=r1KFqiOW…> Meeting ID: 980 4578 3633 Passcode: B*1siuUn&R Zoom Audio only: One tap mobile +13017158592,,98045783633#,,,,*4650718506# US (Washington DC) +13126266799,,98045783633#,,,,*4650718506# US (Chicago) Meeting ID: 980 4578 3633 Passcode: 4650718506 Find your local number: https://icann.zoom.us/u/a7FNVvMGM [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/a7FNVvMGM__;!!PtGJab4!57…> Should you be unable to attend the meeting, please let us know in advance. A recording will be made available. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions. Best regards, Renate Peter Eakin Policy Research Specialist, Policy Research & Stakeholder Programs Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: + 32 493 547 913 Office: 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt. 1, Brussels B-1040, Belgium

1 0

ICANN IGO-INGO IRT: IGO Comments on GNSO Resolution (reposted)
by Peter Eakin April 7, 2026

April 7, 2026

Dear IRT, In relation to my last email, forwarding recent comments from IGOs on their interpretation of the GNSO Resolution. These are already included in the IGO document issued moments ago, but reposting here so that they can be logged in our public archive. Best, Peter Peter Eakin Policy Research Specialist, Policy Research & Stakeholder Programs Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: + 32 493 547 913 Office: 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt. 1, Brussels B-1040, Belgium From: "Beril.ARI(a)oecd.org" <Beril.ARI(a)oecd.org> Date: Tuesday, 24 March 2026 at 18:23 To: Peter Eakin <peter.eakin(a)icann.org> Cc: "Mia.TUZOVIC(a)oecd.org" <Mia.TUZOVIC(a)oecd.org>, "brian.beckham(a)wipo.int" <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int> Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: Reminder for input on UDRP V5.0 and NCSG ICANN85 Update Request Dear Peter, There are several different ways to resolve a dispute — for example arbitration, court proceedings, or mediation etc. These are simply different mechanisms or different places (“fora”) where a dispute can be decided. Before the EPDP discussions, if someone wanted to challenge a decision made under the UDRP or URS, there was only one forum available: courts. However, IGOs cannot appear before national courts because of their immunities, so court being the only available forum created a problem. To fix that, the EPDP introduced arbitration as an alternative forum to challenge a UDRP/URS decision. However, it has always been possible for parties to choose arbitration directly, instead of starting a UDRP/URS process, or in parallel with it. Going to court or choosing arbitration instead of or in parallel of UDRP/URS has never been discussed during the very long history of these discussions; and it has never been part of the EPDP’s mandate and accordingly it has never been raised or discussed during the EPDP work either. The EPDP was only meant to introduce arbitration to challenge UDRP/URS decisions, not to regulate all arbitration or court proceedings that happens outside those UDRP/URS processes. As to your specific question, I think that using the expression “other forms of arbitration” might be misleading because there are not multiple forms of arbitration, “arbitration” is the generic term to cover that specific place/forum to decide a dispute. That said, your understanding on the following is correct: If the parties choose to go to arbitration instead of or in parallel of a UDRP/URS process, how this will be done (e.g which arbitration institution will be selected, governing law etc.) should not be regulated in UDRP/URS Rules. Because choosing arbitration (or going to court) instead of/in parallel with UDRP/URS is entirely separate from the UDRP/URS. Those parallel proceedings, whether they are pursued in courts or via arbitration, should continue exactly as they work today. By way of example, the parties can go to court (in principle) instead of or in parallel of a UDRP/URS process; but the UDRP/URS Rules do not say anything on that. Same principle should apply. I hope this brings more clarity; otherwise, I remain available to answer any further questions. Best, Beril From: Peter Eakin <peter.eakin(a)icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>> Date: Friday, 20 March 2026 at 10:09 To: "Beril.ARI(a)oecd.org<mailto:Beril.ARI@oecd.org>" <Beril.ARI(a)oecd.org<mailto:Beril.ARI@oecd.org>> Cc: "Mia.TUZOVIC(a)oecd.org<mailto:Mia.TUZOVIC@oecd.org>" <Mia.TUZOVIC(a)oecd.org<mailto:Mia.TUZOVIC@oecd.org>>, "brian.beckham(a)wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>" <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: Reminder for input on UDRP V5.0 and NCSG ICANN85 Update Request Dear Beril, I hope you’re well. Thank you again for providing this rationale so quickly. We are discussing internally and will be in touch with the wider IRT very soon. I would like to clarify one point, to make sure that your response is read as intended: Considering OECD’s view on the scope of the EPDP and the effect of the GNSO Resolution, is your opinion that the new arbitral process, accessed via an ICANN-approved provider, is not available until after a UDRP/URS determination is issued? In other words, prior to a determination, parties can seek other forms of legal proceedings (courts, other forms of arbitration) but they cannot use this new ICANN-created arbitral proceeding? Or is it OECD’s understanding that the new arbitral process is available to parties prior to a UDRP/URS determination if so wished, but that ICANN has no policy basis for regulating the details of how this new process may be initiated/operate in cases unrelated to challenges to UDRP/URS decisions? Apologies if this is already clear, I just want to quickly confirm your position to ensure that it is correctly understood. Thanks and best wishes, Peter Peter Eakin Policy Research Specialist, Policy Research & Stakeholder Programs Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: + 32 493 547 913 Office: 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt. 1, Brussels B-1040, Belgium

1 0

ICANN IGO-INGO IRT: Links and materials for 9 April Meeting - PLEASE REVIEW BEFOREHAND
by Peter Eakin April 7, 2026

April 7, 2026

Dear IRT, I hope you are well. You should have received an email invite and calendar placeholder for our next meeting 9 April @ 12:00 UTC - please update your calendars with the latest invite issued by Renate, as it contains the necessary ZOOM links. The purpose of the meeting will be to address implementation options for pre-determination use of the EPDP Arbitral Process, in light of IGO objections to ICANN org’s most recent draft updates, which we shared prior to ICANN85. Given our urgent timescale to finalize our draft policy updates, staff wish to remind the IRT of the need to work quickly to allow the implementation process to progress. To help with this task, please see Google Drive links to 3 documents for your deliberation prior to the next meeting (also attached as Word documents): * A compilation of IGO correspondence, explaining their stance on the GNSO Resolution and understanding of how the EPDP Arbitral Process should be implemented: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10O4i_omwuLQxZr8JVZf-qccXUa3wk8C_whWbWoD… * A short options paper outlining the implementation pathways currently under consideration by ICANN, drafted by staff for the IRTs deliberation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IWMosNH3O8zLAoXhzOXc_lMzz7PM6j4ioRVyunC… * Additional drafted language to the Policy Guidance Document - this version (minus current suggested text) was circulated in December. As no comments were received at that time, I accepted all previous suggestions to show the language relevant to the 9 April discussion: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11VUA3UCptKKRXDNvXXf6uX8mT1vdZE-bRarlWID… Please make sure to read these documents carefully. Given the complexity of the implementation issues we are dealing with, and to inform future discussions, staff believe it is vital that all inputs from IRT members (and the IRT collectively) are gathered for the record. As such, if you cannot attend the next call, or would rather not speak during the meeting, we ask that you instead provide written input in advance on the IRT mailing list. For absolute clarity, staff have indicated current thinking on the implementation options in the attached paper. In the absence of a clear IRT consensus on an alternative, ICANN org will proceed on that basis. Should the IRT disagree with this approach, staff will request that the GNSO Council Liaison return to the Council for more guidance. Public Comment Question During our previous meeting and public session at ICANN85, the IRT discussed an IRT member’s proposal that public comment on the implementation products was unnecessary given previous public comment proceedings on the PDP and EPDP Final Reports. While staff recommended a public comment should take place, we asked IRT members to socialize the idea with their respective constituency groups and report back on their initial reactions. To date we have not heard any feedback on this issue, other than that the NCSG are strongly opposed to the idea. Accordingly, staff will begin preparations to open the public comment proceeding as soon as agreement is reached on policy language. We can talk about this as needed during our next meeting but staff, while appreciating the attempt to expedite our timeline, are of the opinion that public comment is a necessary step in our implementation path. The IRT goal remains to complete this phase of our work as soon as possible this month. This will require us to work asynchronously. We will discuss further during our meeting. As requested, please contact me with any questions or remarks. Best wishes, Peter Peter Eakin Policy Research Specialist, Policy Research & Stakeholder Programs Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: + 32 493 547 913 Office: 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt. 1, Brussels B-1040, Belgium

1 0

IGO-INGO Curative Rights IRT Meeting #20 | 9 April 2026, 12:00-13:00 UTC
by Renate De Wulf April 7, 2026

April 7, 2026

Dear All, Meeting #20 of the IGO-INGO Curative Rights IRT will be held on 9 April 2026 at 12:00-13:00 UTC [local time<https://tinyurl.com/2c7yes9z>]. The final agenda will be posted here<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYBdP>. Before the meeting, please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>, the ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy<https://www.icann.org/en/governance/documents/icann-community-anti-harassme…> and the ICANN Community Participant Code of Conduct<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-icann-community-partici…>. We would like to remind participants that to ensure transparency of participation in ICANN's multistakeholder model, we ask that you sign in to Zoom sessions using your full name. For example, First Name and Last Name or Surname. You may be removed from the session if you do not sign in using your full name. Zoom information: Join the Zoom Webinar directly (recommended): https://icann.zoom.us/j/98045783633?pwd=r1KFqiOWf27TryA5XkPPONZMui9j6s.1 [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/98045783633?pwd=r1KFqiOW…> Meeting ID: 980 4578 3633 Passcode: B*1siuUn&R Zoom Audio only: One tap mobile +13017158592,,98045783633#,,,,*4650718506# US (Washington DC) +13126266799,,98045783633#,,,,*4650718506# US (Chicago) Meeting ID: 980 4578 3633 Passcode: 4650718506 Find your local number: https://icann.zoom.us/u/a7FNVvMGM [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/u/a7FNVvMGM__;!!PtGJab4!57…> Should you be unable to attend the meeting, please let us know in advance. A recording will be made available. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions. Best regards, Renate

1 0

IGO-INGO Curative Rights IRT Meeting #20 | 9 April 2026, 12:00-13:00 UTC
by Peter Eakin April 2, 2026

April 2, 2026

Please note that Zoom joining information will follow before the meeting Dear All, Meeting #20 of the IGO -INGO Curative Rights IRT will be held on Thursday, 9 April 2026 at 12:00-13:00 UTC https://tinyurl.com/53sznt8d The final agenda will be posted here [icann-community.atlassian.net]<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ICRIRT/pages/edit-v2/9996…> Before the meeting, please be sure you have read the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en>, the ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy<https://www.icann.org/en/governance/documents/icann-community-anti-harassme…> and the ICANN Community Participant Code of Conduct<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-icann-community-partici…>. We would like to remind participants that to ensure transparency of participation in ICANN's multistakeholder model, we ask that you sign in to Zoom sessions using your full name. For example, First Name and Last Name or Surname. You may be removed from the session if you do not sign in using your full name. ****ZOOM INFORMATION TO FOLLOW**** Should you be unable to attend the meeting, please let us know in advance. A recording will be made available. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions. Best regards, Peter Peter Eakin Policy Research Specialist, Policy Research & Stakeholder Programs Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: + 32 493 547 913 Office: 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt. 1, Brussels B-1040, Belgium

1 0

Re: ICANN IGO Curative Rights - Doodle Poll for Meeting 20
by Peter Eakin April 1, 2026

April 1, 2026

FYI, have added some more slots. Peter Eakin Policy Research Specialist, Policy Research & Stakeholder Programs Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: + 32 493 547 913 Office: 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt. 1, Brussels B-1040, Belgium From: Peter Eakin via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt(a)icann.org> Reply to: Peter Eakin <peter.eakin(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 1 April 2026 at 16:30 To: "igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt(a)icann.org" <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt(a)icann.org> Subject: [Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt] ICANN IGO Curative Rights - Doodle Poll for Meeting 20 Dear IRT, I hope you are well. Please see the doodle poll below for potential meeting times next week (8-10 April). I know it’s Easter week for some of you, but it’s important that we get back in touch – hopefully, you can make one of the proposed timeslots. If not, stay tuned for more information on the meeting, including details on how to provide your input outside of the call. https://doodle.com/group-poll/participate/bkjlJ6Na [doodle.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/doodle.com/group-poll/participate/bkjlJ6…> Best wishes, Peter Peter Eakin Policy Research Specialist, Policy Research & Stakeholder Programs Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: + 32 493 547 913 Office: 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt. 1, Brussels B-1040, Belgium

1 0