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

[George Kirikos]

For those planning to participate remotely for Wednesday's call, I've
consolidated the relevant links/passcodes and calculated the times for
NYC and Los Angeles.

NB: San Juan doesn't observe daylight savings time.

https://www.timeanddate.com/time/change/puerto-rico/san-juan

Given the time change this weekend in many parts of North America,
care should be taken in computing the time in your own area.

Wednesday March 14, 2018, 17:00-18:30 local time, Room 103 A (I assume
this is us??)

[listed on agenda as "IGO INGO Protections Discussion", rather than
Curative Rights??)

https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/ICANN61+GNSO+Remote+Participation+Details+Open+and+Public+Meetings#Headings--22295347

vs.

https://61.schedule.icann.org/meetings/647752  ]

NYC time: 5 pm to 6:30 pm
Los Angeles time: 2 pm to 3:30 pm

Adobe Connect: https://participate.icann.org/sju61-103a
Audio Bridge Pass Code: IGO

Sincerely,

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



On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp