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

Mon Apr 23 08:24:45 UTC 2018

Dear Peter,

You are right it is very sad that the working group has not been able to
continue its work. I have listened to the last call and I think other
working group members share this disappointment.

In another thread I asked Philip to show me examples of where an IGO is
entitled to immunity after initiating proceedings. In either the initial
proceedings or any follow-on proceedings.

Somewhat buried and later in a reply to George K. Philip replied:

“If it is judicial proceedings them [sic] of course an IGO's
initiation of process indicates an implicit waiver of judicial immunity.”

Do you agree that after initiating proceedings an IGO is never entitled to
immunity or can you show me examples of where they could be entitled? Any
jurisdiction will do, any matter will do ....

Yours sincerely,

Paul.

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Petter Rindforth <
petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu> wrote:

> Dear Paul,
>
> I fully agree with your frustration that we have not been possible to work
> on our topic/s for over 4 months, however I also know that you are fully
> aware of the fact that this is definitely not decided by us Co-chairs, but
> a way to work on our topics preferred by Mr George Kirikos who initiated
> the public appeal on *December 19*, “Consider this email also a public
> appeal via section 3.7 of the guidelines…”
>
> My personal view has always been that it is important that our WG comes
> to a specific conclusion(s) on our topic, with (hopefully) one majority
> statement and then statements from minority group or groups.
>
> Then everyone is free to refer to the decisions of our WG when
> participating in other WGs and suggest that something similar is discussed
> also for the other WG's topic.
>
> It's a huge difference between stating that "we cannot agree on this topic
> and therefore leave it over to someone else" vs "our WG recommends this,
> which also may be something to consider in other WGs".
>
> Looking forward to meet with you all again later on today.
>
> All the best,
> Petter
>
>
> --
> Petter Rindforth, LL M
>
>
>
>
>
> Fenix Legal KB
> Stureplan 4c, 4tr
> 114 35 Stockholm
> Sweden
> Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
> E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu
> www.fenixlegal.eu
>
> NOTICE
> This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals
> to whom it is addressed.
> It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and
> attorney work product.
> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
> requested not to read,
> copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains.
> Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail.
> Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu
> Thank you
>
>
> 19 april 2018 11:01:17 +02:00, skrev Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup at gmail.com
> >:
>
> 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
> <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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180423/26b4b2db/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 6210 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180423/26b4b2db/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 20169 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180423/26b4b2db/attachment-0001.jpe>