[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP WG

Wed Apr 4 16:27:41 UTC 2018

Hello all,
Sorry for answering so late by I’ve been travelling and on vacations till last Sunday.   Although I was able to participate in ICANN 61, I arrived on Sunday and had to leave early on Wednesday so I wasn’t able to be at the WG’s meeting.
I am Ok with Heather’s recommendation for the WG, I still think that the GNSO Working Group Guidelines are very clear on how to run a WG and on the methodology to reach consensus and we should abide by it.  I don’t think we need a facilitator to help the Chairmen with the WG, nor do I see any problem with an anonymous poll but would agree to non-anonymous poll.  I think that some members of the group, with different opinions, have reach a point where they don’t have room for more negotiations so we should try to decide if we have Consensus or Strong Support but significant opposition.
I continue to support Option 3, as it seems to satisfy some of the requirements requested by the IGOs.
Best regards,
Osvaldo Novoa
ISPCP Constituency

De: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] En nombre de Susan Kawaguchi
Enviado el: viernes, 09 de marzo de 2018 03:35 p.m.
Para: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
CC: gnso-chairs at icann.org; Heather Forrest
Asunto: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP WG

Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group members,

I write as the GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, to circulate a recommendation from Dr. Heather Forrest, GNSO Chair, which I endorse and support. She and I both hope that the proposed approach can be a useful path forward in assisting the group to ascertain and develop consensus (if any) on the six options under consideration relating to the handling of IGO jurisdictional immunity issues where a registrant who has lost a UDRP or URS proceeding against an IGO proceeds to file a court claim against that IGO.

You will find details of the recommended approach in the attached Straw Man Paper (prepared by ICANN staff at Heather’s request) and accompanying Annex. I will be very grateful if everyone can take a moment to provide feedback as to whether you support the suggested approach or not, since this will allow us all to see if the approach may be workable.

As the Working Group has a session coming up next week at ICANN61 (on Wednesday 14 March from 1700-1830 Puerto Rico time), the recommended approach also includes a suggestion for how to organize that session. In brief, the recommendation is:

•       Instead of a regular Working Group meeting or open community session, as has been the Working Group’s practice in recent ICANN meetings, the ICANN61 session will be run as a form of “open office hours”, where any and all Working Group members are invited to discuss their views and questions on the topic of IGO jurisdictional immunity with me, including (and especially) the six options.

•       ICANN policy staff will be on hand, to provide background information and process advice, and to assist me with taking accurate notes of the session.

•       The session will not be recorded, to encourage frank sharing of views (note: this is the model that was adopted for a different group relatively recently to try to break an impasse in that group).

•       Since not everyone will be able to attend the ICANN61 open office hours and, more importantly, because some Working Group members may prefer to provide their views in private, I will (with ICANN staff assistance) hold additional 1:1 or small group conversations (as you may prefer) after ICANN61 – this will most likely be done through Adobe Connect and/or a conference phone bridge.

•       Following these office hour sessions, I will (with ICANN staff assistance) prepare a report for the Working Group on the discussions that took place. That report should form the basis for an initial designation of consensus levels for each of the six options by Phil and Petter.

•       While a non-anonymous poll may be useful at some later stage in this iterative process of finding consensus (consistent with the requirements in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines), it is not necessary at this present time.

Thank you – and on behalf of Heather, thank you also for taking the time to provide me with any and all feedback you may have in light of the procedural path forward noted in this message.

Susan Kawaguchi
Councilor for the Business Constituency

________________________________

El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información

This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180404/2e2ea197/attachment.html>