[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] MP3 IGO WG F2F ICANN52 Friday 13 February 2015

[Terri Agnew]

Dear All,


Please find the MP3 recordings for the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call held F2F ICANN52 Singapore Friday, 13th February 2015 9:00-17:00



http://audio.icann.org/meetings/singapore2015/igo-ingo-crp-access-13feb15-en.mp3

The recordings and transcriptions of the calls will be posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar


Attendance on line:
George Kirikos - Individual
David Heasley - IPC
Imran Ahmed Shah - NCUC
Jay Chapman - Individual
Kristine Dorrain- Individual
Lori Schulman  - NPOC
Alexander Lerman - Individual

Attendance in the room:
Petter Rindforth - IPC
Phil Corwin - BC
David Cake - GNSO Vice Chair
Val Sherman - IPC
Kathy Kleiman - NCUC
Mason Cole - RySG
Susan Kawaguchi - BC



Staff:

Mary Wong

Glen de Saint Gery

Steve Chang

Berry Cobb

Terri Agnew


Facilitator from Incite learning
Chris Robinson


** 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 page:
https://community.icann.org/x/97rhAg
 Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri Agnew
-------------------------------
 Adobe Connect chat transcript for Friday 13 February 2015

  Terri Agnew: Dear all, welcome to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG F2F Meeting on the 13th February 2015 in Indiana Room

  Lori Schulman:I don't see a microphone icon on my adobe connect

  Lori Schulman:should I call in too?

  Lori Schulman:I now have the mic

  Lori Schulman:George and I are buddies

  Jay Chapman:Good morning/evening to all :)

  George Kirikos:Hi everyone.

  Terri Agnew:Lori, I see you mic is active. Did you want to test it?

  Lori Schulman:yes

  Lori Schulman:should I speak?

  Lori Schulman:I heard Terri and George speaking

  Terri Agnew:Excellent!

  George Kirikos:Are you able to speak, Lori?

  George Kirikos:(didn't hear you yet)

  Lori Schulman:I just said, can you hear me?

  Lori Schulman:Guess not

  George Kirikos:Nope. Hmmmmm.

  Terri Agnew:@Lori, we did not hear you but I do see your mic is active

  Terri Agnew:Is your computer muted?

  Lori Schulman:Not muted

  George Kirikos:Calling 1-866-692-5726 (code = IGO1) might be easier.

  Lori Schulman:I will dialin

  George Kirikos:(toll-free)

  Lori Schulman:thanks

  Jay Chapman:testing microphone on cpu....

  George Kirikos:I don't hear you yet, Jay. Maybe the toll-free is better?

  Jay Chapman:10-4

  Mary Wong:Hello everyone - we will be starting soon. Apologies for the delay.

  George Kirikos:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Sling

  Philip Corwin:Good morning to all from Singapore

  George Kirikos:Hi Phil.

  Philip Corwin:Hello George

  George Kirikos:David Heasley too.

  Philip Corwin:And David as well

  David Heasley:Thanks

  Mary Wong:How's the sound coming out for folks on RF?

  Mary Wong:RP I mean

  George Kirikos:Were any IGOs present/observing today?

  George Kirikos:Sound is good for me.

  Philip Corwin:And Lori too :-)

  Mary Wong:@George, only WIPO was here in Singapore and unfortunately Brian could not get his flight back changed. He very much wanted to be here.

  Mary Wong:That would be Brian Beckham, WIPO.

  Mary Wong:As far as staff can discern, no other IGO representatives involved in this issue were present in Singapore

  Lori Schulman:Hi Phil.  Excited for today.

  Mary Wong:Is everyone in AC also dialed in or otherwise have the ability to speak?

  Lori Schulman:Congrats Phil on GNSO seat

  Philip Corwin:Thanks Lori

  George Kirikos:Well done, Phil, and also on your presentation earlier this week to the GNSO council.

  George Kirikos:Echo sound is awful.

  Terri Agnew:@Lori, please mute your computer speakers

  George Kirikos:That fixed it.

  George Kirikos:Yes, we can.

  Terri Agnew:@Alexander Lerman, your mic is not active

  David Heasley:Val can introduce me

  George Kirikos:1-866-692-5726 code = IGO1, Alex.

  George Kirikos:Here's my SOI, for the record: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/George+Kirikos+SOI

  George Kirikos:Echo again.

  Mary Wong:@George, is there still an echo?

  George Kirikos:Nope, all good now here.

  Alexander Lerman:Thanks Terri

  Mary Wong:@Alexander, can you type a brief introduction of yourself in this chat?

  George Kirikos:We can raise our hand in Adobe.

  Glen de Saint Gery:please send me your telephone numbers if you would like to call out to you send them to glen at icann.org<mailto:glen at icann.org>

  George Kirikos:Are we making a transcript today? (if so, it'd help if speakers identify themselves as they begin to speak)

  Mary Wong:@George, yes - thanks for the reminder!

  Mary Wong:We will be recording via MP3 and transcript, and these will all be posted.

  Lori Schulman:I recognize Kathy's voice anywhere. :)

  George Kirikos:Did we receive any further GNSO Constituency responses since our conference call of a few weeks ago?

  Terri Agnew:Welcome David Cake

  Mary Wong:@George, I believe not; so the only substantive Constituency responses we have so far are from the IPC and ISPCP.

  George Kirikos:I'm surprised. I thought the 'deadline' was end of Jan?

  Mary Wong:@George, yes, that's what we had asked.

  George Kirikos:It's odd, since on the one hand, they agreed to a PDP, implying this matter was important. But, only 2  are

  George Kirikos:providing us with input. Hmmm.

  David Cake:A constituency can all believe the issue is important, but not all hold the same views so be unable to provide a constituency response.

  George Kirikos:It would be helpful if they responded, though, to note the divergence of views.

  George Kirikos:With silence, we don't learn much.

  George Kirikos:URS is not run by WIPO. So, they don't have a "WIPO views" document.

  Mary Wong:@George, yes - so I believe Phil was referring to just the standing requirement as a general point.

  Mary Wong:You're in the queue, George.

  George Kirikos:Thanks, Mary.

  George Kirikos:They're more like trademark-blocking rights.

  George Kirikos:ADNDRC is the 2nd provider.

  George Kirikos:(see bottom of http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs )

  Philip Corwin:Thx George

  George Kirikos:Some IGOs do have traditional TMs, in addition to their Article 6ter registrations, of course.

  George Kirikos:And, nothing prevents them from obtaining those cheap TM registrations. Recall, TM registrations are on the order of $300 or so for 10 years in many countries.

  George Kirikos:Whereas a UDRP is $1500+ typically.

  Philip Corwin:Yes, and of course if they have registered one or more TMs there is no issue as regards standing based upon them.

  George Kirikos:Exactly. Perhaps one recommendation we can make is that governments allow for cheap/free TM registration fees for IGO applicants.

  George Kirikos:(i.e. USPTO, CIPO in Canada, etc.)

  Philip Corwin:Good suggestion!

  George Kirikos:It'd complement their Article 6ter rights, and perhaps strengthen/clarify things, but offline and online.

  George Kirikos:but=both

  Lori Schulman:Given Petter's explanation about what this document is, then Kathy's suggestion for place holder words is OK with me

  Mary Wong:@Lori, yes - no problem with placeholder language as long as there's an understanding that this is not (yet) a proposal to actually amend the language of the UDRP.

  Mary Wong:Anyone participating remotely who has a question or comment?

  George Kirikos:Yes, they have standing under common law, even if it's not in Article 6ter,

  Mary Wong:We got ya, Geroge

  Mary Wong:George (sorry)

  George Kirikos:https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Sub+Group+B+-+Existing+IGO-INGO+Protections had a link to the Spreadsheet comparing the ICANN Reserved list to the Article 6ter DB (the 6ter Analysis of Oct 28)

  Imran Ahmed Shah:Yes, +1, I also agree on the consensus .

  Jay Chapman:agree with Phil's summation

  George Kirikos:I took down my hand, so we're ok.

  Mary Wong:OK thanks George

  George Kirikos:(we're getting close to the planned break, by the way)

  Mary Wong:@George, noted :)

  George Kirikos:Perhaps we should do a straw poll, as to whether anyone here believes we should amend the UDRP language itself? (i.e. as opposed to just focusing on the education aspect)

  Mary Wong:@George, I think that's one of the next agenda items :)

  George Kirikos:since it seems most/all who spoke seemed to focus on the education aspect (i.e. adding the WIPO Overview Q/A)

  George Kirikos:2 minute warning until we resume?

  Lori Schulman:Sorry for the noise folks.  I couldn't hear you so I figured you could not hear me.

  Mary Wong:We'll be starting again now

  George Kirikos:That's an approach that's been rejected by most UDRP panels. -- the so-called "Octogen" analysis.

  George Kirikos:Here's a story about some of the Octogen controversy.

  George Kirikos:http://domainnamewire.com/2011/03/03/a-landmark-showdown-at-world-intellectual-property-organization/

  Imran Ahmed Shah:Regarding Para 2, what is the liability on Registrar or Registry?

  Mary Wong:@Imran, Para 2 and the UDRP more generally does not provide for actions against a Registrar or Registry. These are largely provided for in their respective contracts with ICANN, which are enforced through ICANN's compliance department.

  Imran Ahmed Shah:well, but if a registrant has wrong intention or data provided, is s/he responsible individually or there is any additional responsibility of registrar to reconfirm?

  George Kirikos:This topic is somewhat conflated with immmunity, so it might be wise to wait until we've discused that.

  George Kirikos:Yes, Phil, plus volunteers are overloaded, so the prior schedule was probably ambitious.

  George Kirikos:We could even bump up the 1:30 stuff.

  George Kirikos:Since it's more related to standing.

  Lori Schulman:I agree with George's suggestion of shuffling the order of discussion.  It is logical.

  George Kirikos:It's unfortunate that Paul Keating isn't here, as he put forth the 4th idea.

  George Kirikos:Here's the UNITAID case: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1922

  George Kirikos:It wouldn't require govts to bring forth the case.

  George Kirikos:But, if IGOs didn't want to agree to mutual jurisdiction, that would be an option for them.

  George Kirikos:Because, just like UNIFEM, if the national govt decides not to act, the IGO has no choice at all, but *must* agree to enforce things in the courts.

  George Kirikos:Furthermore, it's entire consistent with Article 6ter, as it's the national governments who are signatories to the treaties.

  George Kirikos:It's the signatories to the treaties who have the obligations, no one else.

  George Kirikos:We could agree not to accomodate the IGOs at all, which I'd find acceptable.

  George Kirikos:The idea of the proxy complainant was just a way to accomodate, while still preserving the appeal rights of domain name registrants, thus balancing things.

  George Kirikos:(compared to the alternative of giving IGOs 100% of what they want, and depriving registrants of their rights, which IMHO is entirely unbalanced.

  George Kirikos:Paul Keating's alternative, of course, was the limited waiver, limiting the downside risk of mutual jurisdiction simply to the domain, and not legal costs, etc.

  George Kirikos:Do we know how many IGOs are eligible for .INT?

  George Kirikos:(not how many registered, but rather 'What's the universe...?')

  George Kirikos:+1 Kathy

  George Kirikos:Welcome, Kristine.

  Kristine Dorrain:Hi...I popped in for a little bit.  No mic so I'll listen and type in the chat if I have something to add.

  George Kirikos:Kristine: you can dial in, 1-866-692-5726, code = IGO1 (or IGO2)

  George Kirikos:toll-free in North America

  Kristine Dorrain:Thanks...I need to use headphones bc people are sleeping at my house :)

  George Kirikos:As part of our charter, we were asked to:

  George Kirikos:Oops, nevermind.

  George Kirikos:Correct, Phil. It's a 'reserved list'.

  George Kirikos:It blocks any attempt to register in new gTLDs, regardless of how the domain would be used.

  K:Hi All, the "K" is me - Kathy Kleiman

  George Kirikos:So, eco.horse can't be registered, or eco.cars.

  K:http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=4807:52zd7x.1.1

  K:Link to Trademark Database

  K:of the US

  George Kirikos:That link won't work, Kathy -- you'd need to click on the TSDR, and link to that.

  George Kirikos:e.g. http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=89000177&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

  George Kirikos:(for UNESCO)

  Berry Cobb:https://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/intreg/intreg.pl

  Kristine Dorrain:You beat me to it Berry

  Berry Cobb:Quick draw McBerry

  K:I agree with Phil completely that .INT is likely an ancient and pre-ICANN criteria.

  George Kirikos:Probably right, Kathy.

  George Kirikos:Even the GAC criteria was somewhat ad hoc, but the .int ones would have been even more 'casual', as opposed to the rigour of this PDP.

  George Kirikos:The .int criteria at http://www.iana.org/domains/int/policy

  Berry Cobb:To register in the .int domain, the applicant must be an intergovernmental organization that meets the requirements found in RFC 1591. In brief, the .int domain is used for registering organizations established by international treaties between or among national governments. Only one registration is allowed for each organization. There is no fee for registering an .int domain name.

  Berry Cobb:https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt

  George Kirikos:RFC 1591 was from 1994. https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt

  George Kirikos:If we believe in RFC 1591, it says "In case of a dispute between domain name registrants as to the      rights to a particular name, the registration authority shall have      no role or responsibility other than to provide the contact      information to both parties."

  George Kirikos:That rejects the idea of the UDRP. :-)

  Kristine Dorrain:For .int.  Its still an option for .com

  Kristine Dorrain:Presumably if IANA is reviewing .int applications, there isn't a lot of infringment.

  George Kirikos:Kritistine: That was for all com/net/org/int/edu-- it was 1994, pre-UDRP.

  Kristine Dorrain:Yes, that was originally the case.

  Berry Cobb:19 March, next Council meeting

  George Kirikos:Organizations with Observer Status of the UN qualified for .int, it seems.

  George Kirikos:http://www.un.org/en/ga/about/observers.shtml

  George Kirikos:Oddly, that might include the Holy See and Palestine.

  George Kirikos:It'd include these: http://www.un.org/en/members/intergovorg.shtml

  George Kirikos:some (all?) of which appear on the ICANN Reserved List (we'd have to cross-check them)

  George Kirikos:Conceivably we can use as a starting point the list provided by the GAC (which was our initial "scope"), and simply trim it, based on Article 6ter?

  George Kirikos:(i.e. we might be expanding our scope, if we go beyond the GAC list, i.e. the existing reserved list)

  Berry Cobb:http://www.statdns.com/files/zone.int

  Berry Cobb:retrienved June 2012.

  George Kirikos:11 mins until "lunch" break (or midnight break in Eastern time).

  George Kirikos:GAC cared enough to compel the ICANN Board to put all those names on the reserved list.

  George Kirikos:See ya in 45 mins.

  Mary Wong:Just FYI - the GNSO policy staff provides the GAC with monthly briefing papers on ongoing PDPs (including this one). We can work with Mason to ensure that this WG's communications/questions to the GAC are funneled through the most effective way.

  Alex:Thanks

  Mary Wong:We are breaking for 45 minutes - back in session at 13:15 Singapore time.

  Kristine Dorrain:Thanks.  I'll try to be back but I have to work in the morning.

  Lori Schulman:I will call back in\ later.

  Lori Schulman:j/ts ,late here in DC but I will hang on as late as  I cann

  George Kirikos:Are we all back yet?

  Steve Chan:Just about to reconvene

  George Kirikos:Great. Feeling sleepy and incoherent here, but will do my best to stick around until 4 am.

  Val Sherman:+1 George

  George Kirikos:Exactly, Phil.

  George Kirikos:WIPO maintains a list of cases at:

  George Kirikos:http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/

  George Kirikos:however it's not complete. Probably under 1% of UDRP cases ever go to court.

  George Kirikos:I can't recall what we asked them, but do we know how the IGOs enforce their alleged rights in the offline world?

  George Kirikos:(e.g. someone sells UNESCO t-shirts, etc.)

  George Kirikos:I'm assuming that UNESCO can't compel the t-shirt seller to an international tribunal of their choosing, in that scenario.

  George Kirikos:Who is that proposal from? I can make my own 'wish list'.... :-)

  George Kirikos:I found an interesting Canadian case here: http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nsca/doc/2011/2011nsca73/2011nsca73.html which discusses the nature and limits of IGO immunities.

  George Kirikos:8The foregoing analysis leads me to the conclusion that NAFO is not entitled to complete other [sic] absolute immunity from legal process in Canadian courts. Rather, NAFO is entitled to immunity from legal process to the extent, and only to the extent, that it can show that immunity in a particular case is "required for performance of its functions"

  George Kirikos:We should put this case in our wiki -- it has lots of interesting findings.

  George Kirikos:Actually, this case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, and their ruling is at: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc66/2013scc66.html  (still reading)

  George Kirikos:Bingo! " For NAFO to perform its functions, however, it does not require immunity from A's separation indemnity claim.  The separation indemnity does not interfere with NAFO's functions.  Indeed, NAFO recognizes that it owes a separation indemnity to A under its Staff Rules and concedes that the NAFO Immunity Order does not immunize it from A's claim.  "

  George Kirikos:This is a demonstration that IGO immunity is not absolute.

  George Kirikos:NAFO, by the way, has www.nafo.int<http://www.nafo.int>

  George Kirikos:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Atlantic_Fisheries_Organization

  George Kirikos:It's an IGO.

  Steve Chan:@George, I went ahead and added your two cases to the WIki

  George Kirikos:Important Language: However, no rule of customary international law confers immunity on international organizations.  Instead, they derive their immunity from treaties, or in the case of smaller international organizations like NAFO, from agreements with host states.

  George Kirikos:This means that in countires outside the host country, they don't have immunity.

  George Kirikos:countries, even

  George Kirikos:Another important document: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/796050?sid=21105341349941&uid=2&uid=3739448&uid=3737720&uid=4

  George Kirikos:That was a Supreme Court of Canada case, the highest court in the nation.

  George Kirikos:Another document showing it's not absolute, see: https://books.google.ca/books?id=kd9bIjlpVfcC&pg=PA327&lpg=PA327&dq=igos+absolute+immunity&source=bl&ots=1yX77Ml3x8&sig=RhLeuROE1jJKVyMxOODtrptTloY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FJbdVO3EJMaZsQTArIHICA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=igos%20absolute%20immunity&f=false

  George Kirikos:http://www.earthrights.org/blog/us-court-rejects-absolute-immunity-international-organizations

  George Kirikos:"In a decision with potentially far-reaching implications, a U.S. court recently rejected the idea that international organizations enjoy absolute immunity from suit in the United States. "

  George Kirikos:(2010 case)

  George Kirikos:(I simply did a Google search for "IGO absolute immunity") (without the quotes) to find these cases.

  George Kirikos:For the Canadian cases, I searched on CanLII.org.

  George Kirikos:Organization of American States case -- http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8BumVFgLIeoJ:www.oas.org/legal/english/IMMUNITY_WB_111110.doc+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=opera

  George Kirikos:" Article 133 of the OAS Charter provides that the Organization shall have "such legal capacity and privileges and immunities necessary for the exercise of its functions and the accomplishment of its purposes."   That immunity is clearly functional in scope. "

  Kathy:@Mary: could we please add to the notes that IGOs might already have agreed to the waiver of certain jurisdictional rights by virtue of their existing Registration contracts for domain names? Tx!

  Mary Wong:@Kathy, that's been brought up a few times in prior WG discussions, I believe.

  Kathy:@Mary: can we add it to the notes of what *we* will need to consider going forward. It seems quite key.

  George Kirikos:We also know they've expressly waived immunity, by bringing UDRP complaints. I.e. the World Bank case.

  George Kirikos:i.e. an IGO that brought a UDRP....imagine.

  Kathy:@George: exactly

  George Kirikos:That World Bank case was http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0222.html

  Kathy:@George, just checked it out. Good decision; good point.

  Mary Wong:The Unitaid and World Bank case were posted to the WG wiki following WG discussions several weeks ago; Steve has just added a new subsection for the question of absolute sovereign immunity to the same page.

  George Kirikos:Those same scams exist on domains that don't infringe marks, though.

  George Kirikos:Suppose I put up a phishing site for UNESCO on www.kjghkshg.biz<http://www.kjghkshg.biz> -- they can't file a UDRP in that case. How do they obtain relief?

  George Kirikos:Right, due process concerns should be paramount.

  George Kirikos:Val: actually, IGOs wouldn't be giving up their right of appeal.

  George Kirikos:They'd only be be saying they don't agree to mutual jurisdiction.

  George Kirikos:(they want to preserve absolute immunity from others launching appeals)

  Kathy:who is keeping track of all of these excellent questions being raised??

  George Kirikos:The transcript/MP3 recording.

  Kathy:But it would be great to see the evolution of these questions in Notes section of our group document (to the right)

  Mary Wong:@kathy, we are keeping notes as you see, but we don't do live transcriptions, like the official ICANN scribes do and are qualified to do :)

  Mary Wong:The transcript and recording will be published when they're available, and we will flesh out the notes and questions based on reviewing these at that point (per usual WG practice).

  Kathy:OK, tx Mary

  George Kirikos:Are we still going for the next 2 hours?

  Mary Wong:@George, unlikely.

  George Kirikos:Ok.  Approaching 2 am in the Eastern part of North America.

  Mary Wong:We're starting again

  George Kirikos:Yep, still here.

  George Kirikos:Hanging on. :-)

  Mary Wong:We appreciate it, George and everyone who's up so late!

  Jay Chapman:zzzz

  Jay Chapman:jk

  George Kirikos:hehe Jay. :-)

  George Kirikos:I hope those in Singapore have a safe trip home.

  Jay Chapman:Thanks everyone.  Good day and good night!  Safe travels home to all.

  Val Sherman:Thanks all!

  Philip Corwin:Thanks to all our WG members.

  George Kirikos:Is there a link to the survey?

  George Kirikos:Bye everyone.

  Imran Ahmed Shah:Thanks All.

  Mary Wong:Good night all, thank you!





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20150214/90ebc3ec/attachment-0001.html>