[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] ICANN64 sessions that might be of interest to IGO PDP working group members
George Kirikos
icann at leap.com
Sat Mar 9 07:31:13 UTC 2019
Hi folks,
I was able to save the raw scribe text of the first session (edited to
only include the material related to IGO Curative Rights), and it's
below. (the first "UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER" below is Brian Beckham of
WIPO) The slides they refer to weren't posted on the ICANN website,
yet.
Ultimately, IGOs want it their way, i.e. any deviation from GAC advice
appears unacceptable to them, despite our working group bending over
backwards to find solutions (e.g. identifying the solution to use an
assignee, licensee or agent, to shield the IGO) that fairly balance
the rights of registrants and IGOs. The IGOs continue to overstate the
nature of their actual immunity (when doesn't apply when they're
initiating a dispute).
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/
----- start of relevant portion of the scribe feed -----------
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you, Chair, Manal, and Nigel, wanted to
afirm we have been making good progress with ICANN staff and
appreciate the concert resources they have been devoting, we've been
able to roll up our sleeves and reach out to IGO no, sir the full name
protection issue. Manal gave a very good overview earlier and I would
commend to you if there is specific trillion or -- interest or
details, the briefing papers, item 2.2 in your briefing materials,
the only thing I would add by way of background to the prior intuks
introduction, the current effort for providing a level of protection
for IGOs in the new gTLD and the [indiscernible] stems from the
details -- it was recognized that the process for introducing new
gTLD, in particular rights in the names and acronyms of IGOs so this
is a long-standing matter of GAC interest and advice. To briefly
dovetail on the idea of the list of the full names, and Manal
mentioned earlier that the acronym res temporarily protected by virtue
of a board resolution and the log jam has been a working group under
the auspices of the GNSO which came out with dbl does not reflect the
IGO's unique status as international both sides established up the law
nor does it reflect the global public interest.
On page four of the briefing materials there's a list of
proposed GAC actions for this meeting and on page 12 there is a very
useful list of briefing information that has been provided by IGOs
throughout the course of this policy making process. So we are here
this week to answer questions, to work with GAC leadership, with
council leadership and there's a little bit of a chicken and e, e, g,
g, regard -- we stand ready to assist and thank you fuel your support
MANAL ISMAIL, GAC CHAIR: Thank you, Brian, and for the
transcript, the previous speaker was Brian from WIPO. So moving on to
the other part of our discussion, or our update, it's the IGO access
to curative rights protection mechanism and starting with the latest
developments on 17th July [reading] [refer to slide].
So going onto the following slide, as I mentioned earlier, this
afternoon, we had the very constructive dialogue with the GNSO
inter-sessionally between Barcelona and here. We had leadership call
and we had another call with a few members from the GNSO and the GAC
specifically on this topic. They have not taken a decision yet. They
are engaging with us constructively and to take an informed decision.
So the options, they currently have on the table, they have four --
[reading] [refer to slide].
So those are the four option they are currently looking at and
for the sake of our meeting with the GNSO on -- okay, it's tomorrow.
They have asked concrete questions to the GAC that we need to think of
and engage tomorrow with the GNSO and weigh in our views so that they
can take an informed decision.
So questions are would interested parties among GAC members be
willing and available to participate? Of course should they --
excluding the first option which is approve the final report, if we
exclude this option and go to one of the other three, would interested
GAC parties be willing and available to participate? Does the GAC
have views on the efficiency of the recent experiences in in the EPDP
-- does the GAC see the rpm PDP as a potentially suitable venue,
[refer to slide]. So I am putting up those questions now for everyone
to sleep over and to think about GAC views on this so that we can have
a fruitful and interactive discussion with the GNSO tomorrow.
As I said, they have been very constructive and very willing to
hear from the GAC and they need just any signal that we are interested
to engage in this. Do we have any more slides? I'm sorry. Yeah. So
proposal for GAC action. [reading] so it's tomorrow at quarter past
3:00, [reading] so as I said, the main intention of this part is to
bring to your attention the status quo within the GNSO and the
questions to the GAC so that we are well prepared for an interactive
and constructive dialogue tomorrow with the GNSO..
Brian, yes, please? WIPO.
BRIAN BECKHAM: From WIPO for the record. To follow up on
questions from the prior slide on page 13 of the briefing materials,
the first melt there is an issue report from -- bullet. Related to
that on page 12 in the middle is an IGO small group proposal. Mainly
what this proposal sought to do is reflect using the existing uniform
domain name policy design for trademark owners to provide a similar
curative rights protection mechanism for IGOs that reflected their
status under international law, namely having certain privileges and
immunities from national courts and I think one of the core questions
for the GAC is for the council to think about is we have in 2007 and
in 2016 a proposed solution for this issue, those proposed solutions
were put before the working group that produced recommendations which
go against GAC advice. And if I may be frank, our perception is that
the council is choose to go rather white wash the reality of what
happened in that working group which produced recommendations which go
squarely against GAC advice. This is obviously a bigger question for
the PDP process for the multi stakeholder model but we believe it's
important that that part of the process that led to the result that is
in front of us is on the record. Thank you.
MANAL ISMAIL, GAC CHAIR: Thank you very much, Switzerland.
JORGE CANCIO: Thank you, Manal. Jorge Cancio, Switzerland for
the record. I guess -- and this is the opportunity we have to prepare
this question. Because quickly looked at the agenda for tomorrow and
I haven't seen whether we have preparation of the GNSO meeting. Okay.
So I think we need to go into substance and really while I fully
understand and support what Brian just mentioned, that is no surprise,
we have been supporting the IGO position very consistently these last
years -- I think we also have to go cognizant of what is the position
of the GNSO council. And there could be an option that the GNSO
council took a more substantial look into the report from the curative
protections PDP working group, but they are not going to do that
because they understand their rules has to be purely procedural, and
as I understood the position from the GNSO council during the call we
had where I was invited to participate, they very bluntly have two
options. Either they go on with the PDP working group
recommendations, look only at the procedure, turn a bit of a blind ion
what is the substance, or they -- eye, on, or they re, come manned,
the work restarted in some fashion, be it in the same working group or
a different PDP working group, in this case the rights protection
mechanisms PDP, which is a very big thing which has many other topics
to deal with.
So if we take this situation as more or less fixed, that the
GNSO only has those two avenues of action, I think that we don't want
the GNSO council to take a decision which is inconsistent with GAC
advice. So we should advise against option one, which is approve the
final report. And then we should I think advise that they restart the
work. But this restart should be uncertain conditions. And I think
the questions from the GNSO council go in that direction. Okay, what
could be the conditions under which the GAC and the IGOs would
participate in such a restarted PDP working group.
And I don't think it has to fully restart but probably it
should return to the moment after they release the initial report or
just before they release the initial report. And the conditions I
think we should take benefit from the experience of other discussions.
I don't know the discussions so well or how it is going in the EPDP
but for instance in the case of the Red Cross, we had a similar
problem but there the council already had decided over a final report
and we had turn that back with facilitated discussion with Bruce at
the time, very lengthy process because the GNSO council had already
adopt ad final report, so I think we I want to avoted that but we can
learn from that experience -- avoid -- that in the Red Cross restarted
PDP working group, what happened actually is that there were seven or
eight members from the GNSO and one or two people from the GAC,
including our colleague from the Red Cross, did he -- Stephen Hank
continues, and the rest of the members tried to understand what are
the needs, interests and also the rights of the Red Cross under
international law and public policy and that allowed to us reach a
compromise.
So to sum up, a fair say, a fair voice, that would really help
us to be at least for myself, amen to believe getting to that option.
Thank you
MANAL ISMAIL, GAC CHAIR: Thank you, very much, Jorge and thank
you for the food for thought for everyone until tomorrow. We need to
move on to dot Amazon. Do you have a quick intervention, Kavouss
Arasteh?
>>
KAVOUSS ARASTEH: Yes, a quick intervention that we need to
understand each other's process and procedures. We have GAC advice
and they have PDP. And each of us following our own ways. I think
the most appropriate way at this stage to requesting or asking or
urging not to go to vote to approve those and leave the room for
further dialogue. I'm sure that we would reach some sort of
understanding with dialogue in time. But asking them not to vote,
take the motion from the vote for the time being and allow this should
be a new PDP, whether EPDP, that is something we have to discuss but
have to understand each other's positions thank you.
MANAL ISMAIL, GAC CHAIR: Thank you, Kavouss, and I think this
is the type of discussion we need to make with the GNSO tomorrow. So.
GHISLAIN DE SALINS: , Frank's continues supporting the work of
the IGOs and the work of Brian, especially from WIPO. I agree that we
should definitely not go with option one and advice -- ideally go with
option 2, the other options being less ideal for GAC but tomorrow we
will -- our meeting with the GNSO will be a good place to discuss all
of this. I know we're a bit late already, so I will stop here and we
can discuss it further tomorrow in the meeting with our GNSO. Thank
you.
---- end of relevant portion of the scribe feed -------------
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:04 PM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I went through the posted schedule for ICANN64:
>
> https://64.schedule.icann.org/
> https://64.schedule.icann.org/meetings?classes[]=Groups%3A%3AMeetings%3A%3AMeeting
>
> to see if there might be sessions that relate to the IGO PDP, and
> here's what I found that might be of interest to monitor, to ensure
> that the Consensus Recommendations that we achieved as a working group
> are respected:
>
> 1. Japan local time, Saturday March 9, 15:15-16:45
> (Toronto time: Saturday, 1:15 am)
> GAC meeting, IGO topic is on the agenda.
>
> https://64.schedule.icann.org/meetings/961947
>
> 2. Japan local time, Sunday, March 10, 15:15-16:15
> (Toronto time: Sunday March 10, 1:15 am)
> GAC meeting with the GNSO, IGO topic is on the agenda)
>
> https://64.schedule.icann.org/meetings/961954
>
> There's Adobe Connect capability for both sessions.
>
> If there are other sessions that might be of interest, please share.
> To my knowledge, there's no scheduled vote by GNSO Council on the IGO
> PDP final report's consensus recommendations during ICANN64.
>
> By the way, there's a time change in Canada/USA this weekend, so folks
> might want to be extra-careful when converting between time zones for
> events at ICANN64 (I used
> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html for the
> conversions to Toronto time).
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
More information about the Gnso-igo-ingo-crp
mailing list