<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoPlainText">I would point out that neither the Board nor GAC has endorsed what the IGO small group has proposed. As the cover letter states, " I am pleased to inform you that the Board has been notified that
<b>the small group has reached consensus on a proposal for a number of general principles and suggestions that it hopes will be acceptable to the GAC and the GNSO</b>. I attach that proposal to this letter for the GNSO’s review.” This is the same small group
of IGOs that has been conspicuous in its absence from almost the entire established process in which the GNSO-created WG examining CRP for IGOs has sought to provide greater protection of their legitimate rights.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I would also point out that what the Proposal contains under point 2, Dispute Resolution Mechanisms, is just two broad principles without any additional detail. There is zero in the way of legal or other justification for the position
taken, and nothing in the way of proposed rules, procedures, or suggested venues for the new and separate DRP they are seeking. The first principle has been effectively addressed by the CRP WG and our report and recommendations will clarify the ready means
by which IGOs may establish standing to use the UDRP and URS in a manner that shields any sovereign immunity they believe they possess. The second principle has been fully considered and mostly rejected by the WG, with one narrow element still under final
discussion. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Virtualaw LLC<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">1155 F Street, NW<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Suite 1050<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Washington, DC 20004<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">202-559-8597/Direct<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">202-559-8750/Fax<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">202-255-6172/Cell<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Twitter: @VlawDC<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Johan Helsingius [mailto:julf@julf.com] <br>
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 6:30 AM<br>
To: James M. Bladel; Phil Corwin; council@gnso.icann.org<br>
Subject: Re: [council] FW: Board reply letter on IGO/RC issues and proposal on IGO acronyms protection from the IGO "small group"</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">James,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> If possible, we will add it as a discussion item under AOB.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Yes, please - I think we do need to discuss this as soon as possible, and have a clear position.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> Julf<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">-----<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">No virus found in this message.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">www.avg.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Version: 2016.0.7797 / Virus Database: 4656/13159 - Release Date: 10/06/16<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>