[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] MP3, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO CRP PDP WG call on Thursday, 04 May 2017
Julie Bisland
julie.bisland at icann.org
Thu May 4 20:23:14 UTC 2017
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, 04 May2017 at 16:00 UTC.
Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-pdp-04may17-en.mp3
AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p7zh4k5xsa0/<https://participate.icann.org/p7zh4k5xsa0/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=c2f1519bc5e7ea0d9d7342497db158484df5018174c1d809ce161113d2020cf4>
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__audio.icann.org_gnso_gnso-2Dcrp-2Dpdp-2D13oct16-2Den.mp3&d=DQMF-g&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=asM5JoG30Yqf49-Nims9k3McNfFtmzlAe1HmuXI6wic&s=0nZvoU1RqsjvPcNWDN_a2vVZDp9uXeyGO8NN2dN5h74&e=>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:
David Maher (RySG)
George Kirikos
Jay Chapman
Mason Cole
Paul Tattersfield
Petter Rindforth
Philip Corwin
Poncelet Ileleji
Apologies: Osvaldo Novoa, Paul Keating
ICANN staff:
Nathalie Peregrine
Mary Wong
Steve Chan
Berry Cobb
Dennis Chang
Eric Evrard
Julie Bisland
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/OQPfAw
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Julie
-------------------------------
Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 04 May 2017
Julie Bisland:Welcome to the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call on Thursday, 04 May 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Julie Bisland:Agenda Wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_OQPfAw&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=QiF-05YzARosRvTYd84AB_UYInlydmFcjNmBM5XgySw&m=RX60n61vUwQ1D2MVchuxr_Nw6Jr5X4vSowyDAzhR8k8&s=VRabae1w7gw3fwUhgAuiLtaEiOJ-n3V64m-Fe8l5gKo&e=
George Kirikos:Hi folks.
Petter Rindforth:Hi All :-)
George Kirikos:Hi Petter. How's it going?
Petter Rindforth:You will soon hear the latest news
George Kirikos:Perhaps blast out a reminder email?
Paul Tattersfield:Hi everyone
George Kirikos:Hey Paul. How are you?
Paul Tattersfield:I'm good, George - Nice Spring Summer day here, how are you and Canada?
Michelle DeSmyter:we have Philip Corwin on Audio only at this time
George Kirikos:I'm doing fine, thanks. Very rainy here in Toronto.
George Kirikos:1 staff member per participant. :-)
Mary Wong:That's personalized service for the community, George :)
George Kirikos:Indeed, Mary! lol
Paul Tattersfield::)
George Kirikos:Here's a link to the latest emails on that list: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/2017-May/date.html
George Kirikos:The email Petter is reading from: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/discussion-igo-rc/2017-May/000156.html
Mary Wong:We will be reviewing the OECD's and other IGOs' views on some points in Prof Swaine's memo as part of this current discussion on new facts and arguments.
Paul Tattersfield:We were also very rigorous in the selection of an Expert
George Kirikos:+1 Phil
George Kirikos:Seems there's a big overlap -- maybe they should just join our group. :-)
George Kirikos:We seemed to be swayed last week into changing the Article 6ter from "proof" of TM rights, to "evidence" of common law TM rights. Do I have that right?
George Kirikos:("proof" of standing, vs. "evidence" of common law TM rights, rather)
Mary Wong:@George, Art 6ter never proved TM rights
Mary Wong:(and we acknowledged that in our Initial Report - that it doesn't confer substantive legal rights)
George Kirikos:Article 6ter DB does show list of objectors. e.g. search at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_ipdl_en_6ter_&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=QiF-05YzARosRvTYd84AB_UYInlydmFcjNmBM5XgySw&m=RX60n61vUwQ1D2MVchuxr_Nw6Jr5X4vSowyDAzhR8k8&s=u9EjftHctS4FHa3aHeuISyUusu1IViB72vt1tTBBPNI&e= (bottom field can be switched to United States).
George Kirikos:@Mary: right, not TM rights, most "it was sufficient from standing initially; now we seem to be moving to the position of it being 'evidence' of standing (not sufficient, but evidence), via evidence of common law rights.
Mary Wong:@George, that seemed to be the tenor of the WG's most recent discussions (though I need to say again that staff has serious concerns about that as well).
George Kirikos:Ugh, typos; "before, it was sufficient for standing initially, ......)
Paul Tattersfield:What kind of serious concerns Mary?
Mary Wong:6ter only confers protections that allow IGOs to prevent third parties from registering trademarks in Member States, we are not sure that "translates" into any evidence of unregistered right in any jurisdiction.
George Kirikos:Eliminates the need for the GAC to come up with a list in secret.
George Kirikos:Kind of like how ICANN relies on a separate group for the 2-letter ccTLD codes.
Mary Wong:There is no substantive test or evaluation of a 6ter notification. It's just sent to Member States, who then deal with that according to their own individual laws (and as the USG comment notes, that is not uniform).
George Kirikos:(ICANN relies on the ISO list, see: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Country-5Fcode-5Ftop-2Dlevel-5Fdomain&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=QiF-05YzARosRvTYd84AB_UYInlydmFcjNmBM5XgySw&m=RX60n61vUwQ1D2MVchuxr_Nw6Jr5X4vSowyDAzhR8k8&s=lXO2goFtTZUtrGCFUbK2qKjFfOEVkxy-Fgq7zhooMf0&e= )
Mason Cole:Unfortunately, must exit the call early today. Thanks Petter and Phil for the timely update on Bruce's proposal. Talk with you all soon.
George Kirikos:Bye Mason.
Paul Tattersfield:As with trademarks it's use that matters - registration / 6ter listing are comparable, both simply evidence the claims
George Kirikos:+1 Paul. There are 3 prongs to satisfy to win a UDRP. Seems there's a tempest in a teapot re: the 1st prong.
Jay Chapman:I also have to go for today. I'll catch up on transcripts - good day, everyone
George Kirikos:Bye Jay!
George Kirikos:The example Phil gave to the mailing list today also showed it can be non-commercial, and still be victorious in the UDRP.
George Kirikos:(which seemed to be a huge concern for IGOs)
George Kirikos:Press releases, newspaper articles, lots of other sources of evidence.
George Kirikos:(website archives)
George Kirikos:Perhaps we scan scale back the recommendation so that it applies *only* if Article 6ter is used for evidence?
Poncelet Ileleji:I concur on that George
Mary Wong:@George, there isn't a necessary link
George Kirikos:(IGO doesn't need to use Article 6ter, but if they do, then......)
Mary Wong:If 6ter is NOT the basis for standing but merely evidence of standing, then there is no reason to incorporate the rest of 6ter into the UDRP, is there?
George Kirikos:(although, conceivably that's an argument that can be raised by respondents, without us having to make it formal guidance)
Philip Corwin:The criticisms to item #2 are all avoided if we just use 6ter as evidence of common law TM rights
George Kirikos:So, we can just remove that recommendation entirely, and leave it up to the Respondent to raise it as a point, when considering the 2nd and 3rd prongs of the UDRP?
George Kirikos:(i.e. "my website has nothing to do with the IGO, so isn't being used in bad faith"; coexistence)
George Kirikos:Should we have a raise of hands?
Poncelet Ileleji:i raised my hand I concur
George Kirikos:Or checkmarks.
George Kirikos:https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-19jan17-en.pdf
George Kirikos:Recommendation #3: The WG does not recommend any specific changes to the substantive grounds under the UDRP or URS upon which a complainant may file and succeed on a claim against a respondent (e.g. as listed in Section 4(a)(i) - (iii) of the UDRP). However, the WG proposes that the Policy Guidance document referred to in Recommendation #2 includes a further recommendation that UDRP and URS panelists should take into account the limitation enshrined in Article 6ter(1)(c) of the Paris Convention in determining whether a registrant against whom an IGO has filed a complaint registered and used the domain name in bad faith.
George Kirikos:Ugh. Poor copy/paste.
David Maher (RySG):I have to drop off
Mary Wong:It's been copied into the Notes pod, if that's easier.
George Kirikos:So we can delete Rec #3 entirely, then?
George Kirikos:I understand, yes. Keeping the first part of #3 makes sense.
George Kirikos:To clearly state that the 3-prong test shouldn't be changed for IGOs.
George Kirikos:(i.e. it puts on the record that we actually considered and reviewed the topic)
Philip Corwin:That's fine. We can delete #3 and note elsewhere in final report we are not recommending substantive change.
George Kirikos:We can maybe even renumber the recommendations, so that Rec #3 (first part) goes before Rec 2 (as modified by our latest analysis).
Mary Wong:@George, yes - it doesn't need to be a separate recommendation for us to place it clearly on the record.
Mary Wong:Thanks, Phil.
Philip Corwin:So that's a change in oral statement I made a few minutes ago.
George Kirikos:Or, we can rephrase it affirmatively, "recommend that the 3-prong test be retained". :-)
George Kirikos:This was just "new arguments", though.
George Kirikos:(that's a different document)
Mary Wong:@George, yes that was why we extracted these only for this table.
George Kirikos:+1 Mary
George Kirikos:It's just for us to reconsider whether we "missed anything"
Mary Wong:@Phil, no worries at all - we appreciate that you are very supportive of staff and were not saying we were selectively providing only one side of an argument to influence the discussion :)
Mary Wong:If everyone agrees that we understand the points made about consenting to Mutual Jurisdiction = waiver of immunity, problems with using assignees, and different views about the Swaine memo, then the more substantive discussion can be on Option 2 and arbitration, and on a possible separate DRP.
George Kirikos:You meant if we adopt option 2?
George Kirikos:(option 2 involved arbitration; option 1 was to vitiate)
Mary Wong:I've pasted the language we used for both Options in the Notes pod.
George Kirikos:And we've seen that IGOs have even brought court cases, so they can, do and have waived their immunity, when the circumstances warranted.
George Kirikos:Option 2 would be criticized by registrants, too.
Mary Wong:The WG can provide guidance to ICANN on the type of providers to select in relation to who decides, if Option 2 is where we go. In terms of the actual rules to govern the arbitration, as Phil notes, we can look at the UNCITRAL rules and other major rules as well.
Mary Wong:Do you want to propose a break for 18 and 25 May?
George Kirikos:We can still have email discussions, though.
Mary Wong:@George, absolutely.
Paul Tattersfield:Thanks all, bye
George Kirikos:Bye everyone!
Poncelet Ileleji:bye all
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20170504/2e42f266/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-igo-ingo-crp
mailing list