[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group)

Sat Apr 21 00:50:23 UTC 2018

Hi Phil,

Re-read Paul Tattersfield's email -- he wasn't looking for your
*opinion* on the Swaine memo he was just looking for **facts**. Just
saying "excellent explanation" gives no reasons for that opinion, it's
just a raw opinion without reasoning or facts. Saying "I remain proud"
is also raw opinion (implicitly, pride of good work), without
reasoning or facts. Re-read exactly what you wrote:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001128.html

It was all of the form:

(raw opinion) OF (TOPIC/OBJECT)

You gave no "reasons" -- reasons usually follow words such as
"because". I like X *BECAUSE* of Y. What you actually did was string a
lot of words together that were still all one object, but without
reasons, i.e. "the accepted scope of IGO judicial immunity and the
varied analytical approaches that national courts take in determining
the validity of IGO immunity defenses" is all just one "OBJECT", and
your "raw opinion" was that it was an "excellent explanation."

You now (not in your first email response to Paul)  claim his question
is "imprecise" --- why didn't you ask him to be more precise in that
first response to Paul? It didn't occur to you then? Or was it because
I called you out in my prior for ignoring the request for facts he was
looking for? Instead, you just laid it on a bit too thick with the
superlatives -- like candy, but without nutritional content of facts
or reasoning.

Now you've openly acknowledged and concede that Paul was correct in
the judicial setting. There are no such cases, of course.

As for the non-judicial setting (which you imply should be treated
differently, by attempting to make a distinction) you've got to be
kidding me. Let me "dumb it down a bit" as much as I can. Go read your
statement of November 20, 2017 (i.e. still very recent!), where you
were trying to defend the arbitration option (the numbering of all
these options have changed numerous times), but the key part was:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-November/000921.html

"It would also be inconsistent with the WG's prior determination that
ICANN should not interfere with the legal rights of either party to a
UDRP, and should leave judicial determinations to the courts."

[that quote is actually below my reply, because you had sent the email
to the list from the wrong email address, so it appears in my reply;
your original email would not have been archived by the mailing list]

This is key, and perhaps instead of responding quickly without
thinking, and then having to backtrack (like yesterday, with your
wrong timeline; thanks for the apology) this time you will read it
slowly and contemplate things. And then reply after contemplating and
double-checking your facts/reasoning. Let me highlight it in ALL CAPS
for you to think:

"ICANN SHOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF EITHER PARTY TO A UDRP"

Print that out, and stare at it for a while. What happens when the
very existence of those policies interfere with the legal rights? --
Houston, we have a problem. We can reshape the policy to eliminate the
interference, or we can eliminate the policies themselves. (Option #7
-- eliminate the UDRP itself, for example). We've focused on the
former (reshaping the policy).

Let me go back to an earlier statement, still consistent with the above, by you:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2014-November/000119.html

"..ICANN is not in the business of creating new legal rights..."

Now, the "quirk of process" we've identified is an example of ICANN
policy (UDRP/URS) *actually interfering* with those fundamental legal
rights. Now. Today.

It *already* interferes with those legal rights.
It *already* interferes with those legal rights.
It *already* interferes with those legal rights.

I've said it a few times, in case you have missed that key point. Let
it sink in. Print it out and stare at it for a while.

That's the flaw we've been talking about these many moons (same as the
Yoyo.email cause of action issue in the UK). These ICANN policies were
supposed to be "without prejudice" (i.e. without detriment to the
existing rights or claims of the parties to a dispute.) That was the
grand bargain that got them accepted in the first place. In simple
terms, those having a domain dispute can go and have their URS/UDRP,
but both sides were entitled to have the dispute decided on the merits
in the courts if they wanted to, de novo. The policies weren't
supposed to interfere with either side -- they were supposed to be a
lightweight ADR, which could then get relitigated properly in real
courts if need be, de novo. From a clean slate. Without any "baggage"
from the prior URS/UDRP.

So, perhaps you've not caught on to this yet, but the existing
policies have (unwittingly) created "new legal rights" (that don't
exist otherwise in the national laws), through their interference with
the legal rights of the parties, had the UDRP/URS policies not existed
in the first place.

Do you acknowledge/concede this? If you don't, I don't know what more
to say, because this is exactly the reason we're even considering
"fixes" to this problem.

i.e. the fact that we're considering Options #1 through #6 is to solve
a certain problem we've identified -- namely the *interference* of the
rights of a registrant to have the dispute decided on its merits in
the courts.

You've openly admitted that before (and recently):

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-November/000936.html

"Personal comment: The post-judicial granting of immunity/dismissal of
litigation arbitration option is being proposed for the benefit of
domain registrants, not IGOs, to assure some meaningful appeal process
when the judicial route is foreclosed."

This is all about fixing the flaw FOR THE BENEFIT OF DOMAIN
REGISTRANTS. (which opened up the scope topic -- i.e. if we're doing
this for registrants, and not for IGOs, how does that not belong in
the RPM PDP? Supports Option #4, as previously noted).

"THE JUDICIAL ROUTE IS FORECLOSED" -- that's the unintended
consequence of the flaw in ICANN's UDRP/URS, i.e the scenarios we've
been working on.

Now, folks like myself (who are  now in the majority, and perhaps even
a consensus now) want to actually *eliminate* that bug, to stop the
interference. Everything we're talking about is about solving the
problem fully and properly, and not causing the interference with
legal rights any more due to the UDRP/URS policies. [while we support
Option #4, to get that into the RPM PDP, make no mistake -- it's about
getting eventually to Option #1 or the equivalent through other means,
but doing it also for the "cause of action" Yoyo.email issue too,
since they have the same underlying root cause]

Folks like you (the 3 participants of this PDP who support Option #3)
would *preserve* the interference with the legal rights! You propose
arbitration as a "good enough" solution after that interference, but
it's not based on any true principles -- it's a "this should be good
enough for many people" ("who cares if it's not as good as real
courts, it's "good enough").

Folks like myself don't agree with Option #3 because it *still*
interferes with the legal rights of registrants! (i.e. the rights that
would have existed had the UDRP/URS policies themselves not caused
interference) Registrants would be faced with arbitration, rather than
the courts. That's an interference, pure and simple, of their rights.
We actually respect the rule of law. Respect for rule of law is
perhaps one of the most important principle ones can adhere to.
Stakeholders would have great confidence in ICANN if its policies
respected the rule of law, and that's what exactly why we *oppose*
Option #3, because it doesn't have respect for the rule of law. It's
saying "IGOs are above the law, and are so special that they should be
given a policy that provides them something unavailable through the
law." We agree with the fundamental principles of ICANN not creating
new law, and ICANN not interefering with legal rights of others.
Option #3 violates these principles.

As to your statement implying that I'm "unwilling to acknowledge any
validity in alternative viewpoints and are unwilling to contemplate
any compromise when rights conflict", that's not true.

First, you used the word "viewpoints", which means "point of view".
Since a "point of view" can't be valid or invalid, I'm assuming you
mean alternate VIEWS.

Some views/positions are simply invalid. If someone had the view that
the Earth was flat, am I supposed to acknowledge any validity to that
"alternate view" of the world? No. When someone has a valid argument,
I openly acknowledge it. And change my positions accordingly.

The position of the IGOs is simply not correct. They want rights that
don't exist in the national laws, and ICANN should not be in the
business of creating new rights for them. They want to be able to
initiate a dispute, but be insulated from the consequences of
initiating the dispute. Immunity is only ever in play as a defense to
a dispute, not when one is an initiator.

This isn't a case where "rights conflict", e.g. privacy vs free
speech, property rights vs. free speech, or other inherent rights of
nature.

This is a case where the rights *don't* conflict at all. It's clear
cut. You've already acknowledged it yourself, in the judicial context.
The initiator waives immunity.

And the judicial context is the only context that matters. Because if
you say, well, George, this is the non-judicial context, then what
you're really saying is we're creating NEW RIGHTS for IGOs that aren't
mirrored in the national laws, etc. And that's unacceptable. We're not
in the business of giving them new rights (and thus taking away the
rights of registrants). In other words, we don't want ICANN creating
NEW LAW!

And as for contemplating any compromise, I've personally bent over
backwards in this PDP, perhaps more than anyone else, to come up with
creative solutions to help IGOs, while still preserving the full legal
rights of registrants. Who was it that identified the workaround for
the licensee, agent, assignee approach? That was me! That was a
breakthrough, that should have been the end of this PDP, and I openly
called for that in December 2014! (more than 3 years ago) [it was
before this quirk of process was ever identified, too]

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2014-December/000221.html

Option #5, "in rem" vs. "in personam" -- whose "thinking outside the
box" came up with that option? Oh, that was me again. i.e. there's no
immunity at stake, if a registrant files the case "in rem", since the
defendant is the domain itself, rather than the IGO.

Option #2 (renumbered from prior ones), the hybrid solution that says
one can adopt the arbitration (Option #3) *only* for newly created
domain names, but have Option #1 for existing domains. Who came up
with that? Oh, that was me, yet again.

Option #1 -- I supported it, but it was actually first proposed by
Paul Keating, not me.

Option #4 -- supported, obviously, but it came from Zak, as a way to
get to the finish line here, and move on to the RPM PDP where it can
be combined with the Yoyo.email cause of action problem, because
they're really the same underlying issue.

Option #6 was proposed by Paul Tattersfield, and the mediation aspect
has my support, as I've openly said before.

Limited waiver -- proposed by Paul Keating, and has been incorporated
into other options implicitly (supported by me too).

So, to suggest I'm unable to compromise is ridiculous, when I've
worked hard to find solutions. As have others in this working group.
Obviously others have been able to compromise too.

Why don't you re-read Susan's Summary Report, which said that of the 3
people who supported Option #3 (i.e. the one you and Petter support,
with one other person), 2 of those 3 were unwilling to contemplate any
other options but Option #3. How's that for lack of compromise? The
folks who back Option #3 but nothing else -- how are they
"acknowledging any validity in alternative viewpoints", by your words?

What IGOs and GAC are pushing for are *desires*, not *rights*. And I'm
perfectly happy to say "No" to their desires, if they are at the
expense of a registrant's *RIGHTS*. If it was at the expense of a
registrar or registry's rights, I'd have the exact same position,
because I'm against the creation of new rights by ICANN.

Weighing DESIRES against RIGHTS? Easy call to make. I'll go with those
who have the rights on their side (registrants, in this case, whose
rights are being interfered with).

Weighing DESIRES against OTHER DESIRES? That's politics and/or
economics. Tougher call to make, but fortunately in this PDP, we don't
have to make that call.

Weighing RIGHTS against RIGHTS? Another easy call to make --- courts
and legislation are the proper venue for that, not ICANN.

What some folks fail to realize (or perhaps obfuscate) is that some
will play politics and try to frame their desires as "rights".
Fortunately, many of us are on to those tactics, and reject them.

It was very telling that your second last paragraph talked about a
"pragmatic conclusion". Busted. That's what Option #3 is, a
"pragmatic" attempt at a solution, but one at the high price of
continuing to interfere with a registrant's RIGHTS, and not based on
strong underlying principles. It's instead just a sloppy mishmash of
poorly considered ideas, thrown together like a bad meatloaf from old
scraps of leftovers but attempting to be sold as if it's filet mignon.
Our palates can taste the difference, fortunately.

Option #1 (via the path of Option #4 first) puts the parties back to
the same position they would be without the URS/UDRP, respecting both
sides' actual legal rights. It leads to a solution that doesn't
interfere with anyone's rights. That's what a proper solution looks
like, one that completely solves the problem.

The example I gave to Susan during out telephone call back in March
was a simple one, that of a plumber going to fix a water leak. Option
#1 (via the path of Option #4 first) corresponds to the plumber fixing
the water leak completely (i.e. the unintended consequences due to the
"quirk of process" we identified are completely solved). That's the
path of excellence, complete solutions. ICANN should be proud of us if
we adopt that approach, which now appears to be that of the majority.

Option #3 corresponds to the plumber reducing the water leak by half.
There's still a leak, but it's smaller than before. That's the
"pragmatic conclusion" to this PDP that you and Petter are selling,
but others are not buying, and for good reason. If you hired a plumber
who reduced a water leak by half, but said "that should be good
enough", would you still pay him?

Just because you said I can have the last word, don't let that prevent
you from changing your mind and coming to terms with the analysis
above. Don't feel the need to reply immediately -- let the above sink
in, and deeply reflect on things (as folks on my side have done).
Perhaps then you'll understand fully why Option #3 is untenable, and
will work towards a proper solution.

Have a great weekend!

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com> wrote:
> George:
>
> I had no intent to distract anyone and doubt that others on this email list
> were distracted or failed to understand the import of my reply.
>
> My reply was in direct response to Paul's statement that " Swaine is
> irrelevant to what the working group is considering". I completely disagree
> for the reasons stated in that email.
>
> Paul's inquiry - " Show me examples of where an IGO is entitled to immunity
> after initiating proceedings" -- is imprecise as to what proceedings he is
> referring to. If it is judicial proceedings them of course an IGO's
> initiation of process indicates an implicit waiver of judicial immunity.
>
> But our WG was tasked with addressing  IGO access to non-judicial
> proceedings, specifically the UDRP and URS. The fact is that GAC and IGOs have repeatedly
> taken the position that IGOs should not be required to waive judicial
> immunity as a pre-condition of accessing curative rights processes to
> address cybersquatting that can harm the public; and the ICANN Board has
> indicated a strong interest in satisfying their concerns, and is in fact
> required to consider consensus GAC advice. Policy recommendations that are
> supported by GNSO Council must subsequently be approved by the Board after consideration of relevant GAC advice.
>
> It is a fact that you and Paul have dismissed those GAC and IGO positions as irrelevant
> "political" considerations, just as you have viewed IGO immunity concerns as
> irrelevant and not worthy of consideration is shaping a policy response within the bounds of the WG Charter.
>
> The PDP process cannot work when WG members are unwilling to acknowledge any
> validity in alternative viewpoints and are unwilling to contemplate any
> compromise when rights conflict.
>
> And that is precisely why this WG has reached a dead end, and why I shall
> have no more to say on this subject since it is only a repletion of
> endlessly circular policy discussions that reached no pragmatic conclusion.
>
> So you can now have the last word, which I know is a high priority based on
> observation of your behavior.
>
> Philip
>
> Philip S. Corwin
> Policy Counsel
> VeriSign, Inc.
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
> 703-948-4648/Direct
> 571-342-7489/Cell
>
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Kirikos [mailto:icann at leap.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 11:34 AM
> To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com>
> Cc: gpmgroup at gmail.com; Donna.Austin at team.neustar; haforrestesq at gmail.com;
> gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org; rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary
> Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working
> Group)
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> In case you thought it went unnoticed, you didn't actually provide the
> example that Paul Tattersfield's sought. Paul sought facts, but you provided
> no facts.
>
> But, thank you for proving you received and read his email, but had no
> answer to it ---- attempting to distract folks with a non-answer to a simple
> and straight-forward question is yet another example of behaviour that is
> fully consistent with the Section 3.7 appeal I filed, that questioned your
> leadership of this PDP.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 10:57 AM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com>
> wrote:
>> Paul:
>>
>>
>>
>> Responding in an individual capacity -- Professor Swaine's memo is an
>> excellent explanation of the accepted scope of IGO judicial immunity
>> and the varied analytical approaches that national courts take in
>> determining the validity of IGO immunity defenses. I remain proud that
>> we solicited this expert input on the central legal issue before the
>> WG, and appreciative that ICANN funded the research.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am sure it will be of substantial assistance to whatever decisional
>> body determines how best to resolve the inherent conflict between
>> statutory rights of domain registrants and the desire of IGOs to have
>> a means of addressing cybersquatting that does not require full
>> surrender of valid claims to judicial immunity as a condition of bringing
> an action.
>>
>>
>>
>> Philip
>>
>>
>>
>> Philip S. Corwin
>>
>> Policy Counsel
>>
>> VeriSign, Inc.
>>
>> 12061 Bluemont Way
>> Reston, VA 20190
>>
>> 703-948-4648/Direct
>>
>> 571-342-7489/Cell
>>
>>
>>
>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Paul Tattersfield [mailto:gpmgroup at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 7:32 PM
>> To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com>
>> Cc: icann at leap.com; Donna.Austin at team.neustar; haforrestesq at gmail.com;
>> gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org; rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>
>>
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison
>> Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development
>> Process Working
>> Group)
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Philip,
>>
>> OK lets settle this once and for all:
>>
>> Show me examples of where an IGO is entitled to immunity after
>> initiating proceedings. In either the initial proceedings or any follow-on
> proceedings?
>>
>>
>>
>> Any jurisdiction will do, any matter will do......
>>
>> If you can not then Swaine is irrelevant to what the working group is
>> considering.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yours sincerely,
>>
>> Paul.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Paul:
>>
>>
>>
>> For the record, and in regard to this -
>>
>> The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to
>> discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue
>> level but the fact that working group officers can block its
>> discussion for months and months on end.
>>
>>
>>
>> The discussion within the WG was not blocked by the co-chairs. It was
>> blocked because George filed a section 3.7 Appeal at the point in time
>> when the co-chairs wished to initiate the consensus call process. The
>> co-chairs later offered to rescind holding an anonymous poll of the
>> full WG but George rejected that approach and continued his appeal. So
>> far as I am aware you supported George in these actions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Other than speaking with Susan in their individual capacity as WG
>> members the co-chairs had no control over the content of her report.
>>
>>
>>
>> Speaking only for myself, I do not agree with your characterization of
>> the Swaine memo and believe it was highly relevant to the central
>> issue before the WG.
>>
>>
>>
>> Philip
>>
>>
>>
>> Philip S. Corwin
>>
>> Policy Counsel
>>
>> VeriSign, Inc.
>>
>> 12061 Bluemont Way
>> Reston, VA 20190
>>
>> 703-948-4648/Direct
>>
>> 571-342-7489/Cell
>>
>>
>>
>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org]
>> On Behalf Of Paul Tattersfield
>> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 5:01 AM
>> To: George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>
>> Cc: Donna.Austin at team.neustar; Heather Forrest
>> <haforrestesq at gmail.com>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org;
>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison
>> Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development
>> Process Working
>> Group)
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear ICANN,
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with George, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the
>> call later today as I have another meeting half way across the country
>> which clashes with your call. I will listen to the call afterwards and
>> submit any comments to the email list, sorry for any inconvenience.
>> Please accept my apologies
>>
>> Briefly, I would also like to point out:
>>
>> The IGO's have accepted the principle of coexistence and as they are
>> initiating the proceedings they have no immunity rights whatsoever in
>> either the initial action or any follow on proceedings. This is an
>> incredibly simple legal principle and I can not find ANY jurisdiction
>> in the world on ANY matter not just domain names where an IGO would be
> entitled to do so.
>>
>> The matter is only confused because the Swaine reasoning looked at the
>> case where others are initiating an action against the IGOs i.e. a
>> trademark owner looking to seize an IGO's asset. Clearly the expert
>> report is not relevant to the case the working group is considering
>> where the IGO's are initiating proceedings.
>>
>> The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to
>> discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue
>> level but the fact that working group officers can block its
>> discussion for months and months on end. I also note with some dismay
>> that only 2 people in the private office sessions said they were not
>> prepared to accept any other option than option 3 -  the 2 co-chairs
> preferred option.
>>
>> We have an opportunity in this working group to set an example to the
>> RPM working group using any IGO cases to show how UDRP can be easily
>> improved for all parties in a way that does not tilt the balance in
>> either side's favour but just improves process and reduces costs for
>> all parties and meets the GAC's advice.
>>
>>
>>
>> It really is incredibly easy - Free private mediation and a separate
>> (voluntary for registrants) arbitration track. If you want more
>> registrants to CHOOSE arbitration simply make it cheaper, faster and
>> less risky (name
>> only) than the judicial route. This could be sorted in a handful of
>> meetings and no interest group has lost anything!
>>
>>
>>
>> Yours  sincerely,
>>
>> Paul.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:38 AM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> With regards to the Summary Report which is to be discussed tomorrow,
>> there are several parts of it that I disagree with, which I'll discuss
>> orally tomorrow during our call. However, some parts deserve a written
>> response, given that they contain supporting links (and the WebEx
>> interface really sucks, compared to Adobe Connect) so it's best to
>> post them in advance of the call.
>>
>> 1. On page 2, it's asserted that "the number of active participants is
>> extremely low" (it's also repeated on page 3, i.e. "small number of
>> participants' views"). However, that's not consistent with the facts.
>> For example, the IRTP-D PDP, the most recently completed GNSO PDP
>> according to:
>>
>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive
>>
>> has its attendance logs at:
>>
>> https://community.icann.org/display/ITPIPDWG/Attendance+Log
>>
>> If one adds up the "total attended" column, and divide it by the total
>> number of meetings, one obtains the average attendance per meeting:
>>
>> Sum of total attended column = 553
>> Total meetings = 56
>> Average = 9.88 per meeting
>>
>> It is of note that both the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board adopted
>> their recommendations:
>>
>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-d
>>
>> Now, let's compare this to the IGO PDP and its attendance records:
>>
>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Attendance+Records
>>
>> Sum of total attended column = 711
>> Total meetings = 71
>> Average = 10.01 per meeting
>>
>> So, there has actually been HIGHER average attendance (10.01 vs 9.88
>> per meeting) in this IGO PDP, compared to the IRTP-D whose work was
>> successfully completed.
>>
>> 2. On page 3, it's claimed that adoption of Option 4 "will require a
>> Charter amendment" for that other PDP." I'm not convinced that that's
>> a requirement. The RPM PDP charter is at:
>>
>> https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+Charter?preview=3D
>> /5872= 9944/58730036/Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final.pdf
>>
>> and states on page 3 of the charter that:
>>
>> "(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts In the course of its
>> work, the Working Group should monitor the progress of and, where
>> appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN groups that are working on
>> topics that may overlap with or ***otherwise provide useful input to
>> this PDP.*** ....
>> In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into
>> consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT
>> Review, and ***any other relevant GNSO policy development***"
>>
>> (emphasis added)
>>
>> So, I think this situation was already covered by the RPM PDP's
>> current charter, and doesn't need an amendment.
>>
>> As I mentioned earlier, there are other parts of the Summary Report I
>> have concerns about, but I'll save them for tomorrow's call, as they
>> don't require any links/quotes.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> George Kirikos
>> 416-588-0269
>> http://www.leap.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP
>>> Working Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan
>>> mentions in her
>>> 10
>>> April email (below). You should already have received the calendar
>>> invitation and call details for the next Working Group call,
>>> currently scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of
>>> 1600 UTC. Susan will be on the call to discuss the report and
>>> proposed next steps with everyone.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks and cheers
>>>
>>> Mary & Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy at gmail.com>
>>> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26
>>> To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
>>> Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>, Mary Wong
>>> <mary.wong at icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>
>>> Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process
>>> Working Group
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working
>>> Group members,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this
>>> Working Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process
>>> that was set out in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during
>>> ICANN61 and following.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a
>>> report for the Working Group on the input received at and since
>>> ICANN61, with recommendations on next steps from me and Heather
>>> Forrest, the GNSO Chair.
>>> We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this
>>> week, for discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual
>>> time next Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to
>>> present a summary of the report and its recommendations, and answer
>>> questions from WG members.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly.
>>> Bear in mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate
>>> arrangements will be made to support our call.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide
>>> me with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of
>>> the group on this challenging policy area.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Susan Kawaguchi
>>>
>>> Councilor for the Business Constituency
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
>>
>>
>>
>>