[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] MP3, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO CRP PDP Webinar on Thursday, 12 October 2017

Thu Oct 12 20:31:00 UTC 2017

Dear All,

Please find the attendance attached, MP3 recording, AC recording and AC chat
below for the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP Webinar held on
Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 16:00 UTC.

Mp3:  <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-12oct17-en.mp3>
http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-12oct17-en.mp3

AC Recording:
<https://participate.icann.org/p2mzy163wkb/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=e7a3e0ad59e75812
eb19f72c46929374e3ff7948a26ef4dfdf6de2363e5902f4>
https://participate.icann.org/p2mzy163wkb/

The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master
Calendar page:  <https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar>
https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar 

** 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/>
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/

Wiki Agenda page:    <https://community.icann.org/x/64ZEB>
https://community.icann.org/x/64ZEB

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Terri

-------------------------------

Adobe Connect chat transcript for Thursday, 12 October 2017    

    Terri Agnew:Welcome to the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection
Mechanisms Webinar on Thursday, 12 October 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 60 minutes
.

  Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_6
4ZEB
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_
64ZEB&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI
gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jCiBRhrp9BStEUfyRqy9ROB46H_cAWyMB8_8f2XAPJ8
&s=Y2oSnKkApgEsLpjzh99wXc5q_JNMwvqlQj4nW6GsL80&e>
&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh
FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jCiBRhrp9BStEUfyRqy9ROB46H_cAWyMB8_8f2XAPJ8&s=Y2
oSnKkApgEsLpjzh99wXc5q_JNMwvqlQj4nW6GsL80&e=

  George Kirikos:Hi folks.

  Mary Wong:14 counting title slide and the Questions slide :)

  Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all!

  George Kirikos:Can the slides be unlocked?

  Mary Wong:@George, we are keeping them locked at the moment, to enable the
presenters to go through them (unless otherwise instructed by the
co-chairs).

  Paul Tattersfield:Sorry I'm late

  Osvaldo Novoa:Can the presentation be downloadable?

  George Kirikos:i.e. initial recommendation was Article 6ter registration
was PROOF (sufficient) of TM rights; new recommendation is that Article 6ter
registration is EVIDENCE of rights.

  Mary Wong:@Osvaldo, we will circulate the slides and post them to the
Working Group wiki space after this call.

  George Kirikos:The 1st prong of the UDRP is so low, though, so it should
make no practical difference. UDRPs are usually decided on the 2nd and 3rd
prongs.

  George Kirikos:We had 6 options, ultimately. But, now distilled into 3.
:-)

  George Kirikos:Since much of the call for a new procedure was based on the
introduction of new gTLDs, Option B reflects a compromise, targeting the new
Option C to newly created domains only.

  James Bladel:Just an aside, but PDP WGs need to avoid terms like
"vitiated."

  George Kirikos:@James: right, we've suggested other language, e.g. "set
aside".

  George Kirikos:I think in the final report, it'll be wordsmithed better.

  James Bladel:I'm a native English speaker with advanced degrees, and Ihad
to look it up. I'm not a poet, but that's a good barometer that it's going
to pose a problem for translation, etc.

  George Kirikos:Good point, James. Are all the policies being translated
now into the 6 UN languages?

  James Bladel:@GK - The Final report will be translated, but not sure about
all 6.  If the language makes it in to a standard contact (RAA/RA), it will
also need Mandarin.  And changes to the UDRP might also be reflected in the
languaes of paenlists (which include Czech and....I forget where the Asia
Dispute Center is located.  Korean, perhaps?).

  George
Kirikos:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.adndrc.org_
mten_index.php&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2
dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=jCiBRhrp9BStEUfyRqy9ROB46H_cAWyMB8
_8f2XAPJ8&s=bQbrEIK9RWwI-6htuYE-WhmNoZBnVFK1hqJb2LBXqKM&e= :-)

  Brian Beckham - WIPO:Petter, can you clarify, if I read Option A
correctly: if an IGO "wins" its UDRP case, and "wins" in asserting its
immunities in court, the UDRP decision in its favor would nevertheless NOT
be implemented (it would be "vitiated")?

  James Bladel:@GK - Ah, Hong Kong.  Ok.

  George Kirikos:Informing ICANN is important, in terms of data collection
for future reviews (i.e. overcomes some of the problems we've had with data
in other existing PDPs, e.g. the RPM one).

  Mary Wong:The ADNDRC comprises 4 offices - in Beijing (China), Korea, HK
and Malaysia.

  Mary Wong:The slides have now been unsync'ed for scrolling.

  George Kirikos:Thanks, Mary.

  George Kirikos:@Brian: Yes, that's a correct reading.

  James Bladel:Yes, I also don't understand how that works in Brian's
scenario

  George Kirikos:Option A ensures that the registrant's legal rights to have
the case heard in court are preserved.

  Brian Beckham - WIPO:Thanks Mary - and Petter/Phil, if "yes" what is the
public policy rationale for this?

  George Kirikos:i.e. by asserting immunity, the IGO would be violating the
undertaking it made that the case should be heard in court on appeal.

Brian Beckham - WIPO:Thanks Phil (Mary) for clarifying.

  Paul Tattersfield:Absent UDRP the IGO would be required to waive immunity
for the court to consider the matter.

  George Kirikos:Option A doesn't deprive the IGOs of any rights, since they
can still a case properly, through the courts. Or they could have filed via
agent, licensee, etc. to avoid the immunity issue entirely.

  George Kirikos:In other words, Option A preserves the "status quo" if the
UDRP had never existed.

  George Kirikos:Because, IGOs shouldn't have greater rights, relative to
the underlying law, simply by making the strategic choice of filing a UDRP
first.

  James Bladel:Agree with Phil, Option A does not pass the "smell test" and
would not get past Council, let along the Board.

  George Kirikos:The "bargain" that was made when the UDRP was created was
that it wouldn't interfere with either sides' legal rights, so Option A
preserves things.

  George Kirikos:A fully informed view of Option A might change your view,
James.

  James Bladel:@George - even if it is legally & technically sound, it is
politically untenable.

  George Kirikos:Right, I can understand the political argument. But, there
are solid reasons for wanting to preserve the status quo.

  George Kirikos:i.e. should ICANN be creating a policy that takes away the
rights of registrants to due process?

  George Kirikos:It was an unintended consequences of the UDRP itself, since
no one contemplated the specific scenario above.

  George Kirikos:Option A fixes that unintended consequence, while still
giving the IGO the full ability to have its case heard (in a court).

  George Kirikos:Option A doesn't say "the matter is over". It just says
"the UDRP is set aside". IGO can use other means to get its desired results.

  James Bladel:IN that scneario, it wouldn't be ICANN but the courts making
that decision. Which is what they're supposed to be doing.

  Brian Beckham - WIPO:Thanks all for your work/explanations - apologies, I
have to run.

  Philip Corwin:Thanks for your attendance, Brian

  George Kirikos:@James: Right, Option A says *only* the courts have
supremacy.

  George Kirikos:Option A tends to get misrepresented by those who oppose
it.

  George Kirikos:There are thoughtful reasons behind it.

  James Bladel:Need to drop, but glad to see this group is closing in on a
conclusion to its work.  Thanks to all for your continued hard work on this.

  George Kirikos:So, the consensus call will be post Abu Dhabi?

  George Kirikos:Or next week?

  Mary Wong:@George, I think the idea is to have a preliminary consensus
call on just the three Options, but to have a full and formal consensus call
on all the final recommendations after ICANN60.

  George Kirikos:Sounds good, Mary. Especially as we've not seen the draft
final report yet, to review and edit, etc.

  Poncelet Ileleji:+1

  George Kirikos:It should be pointed out to the GNSO council members that
the IGOs declined active participation in this PDP.

  George Kirikos:Despite many invitations to participate.

  George Kirikos:(and despite their participation in the predecessor PDP
that led to this one)

  George Kirikos:Bye folks!

  Donna Austin, Neustar:Thanks Petter and Phil

  Paul Tattersfield:Bye everyone

  Poncelet Ileleji:thanks all bye

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20171012/3df4c837/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: attendance IGO INGO CRP Webinar 12 Oct 2017.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 329824 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20171012/3df4c837/attendanceIGOINGOCRPWebinar12Oct2017-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5018 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20171012/3df4c837/smime-0001.p7s>