<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><div>Dear WG Members,</div><div><br></div><div>Attached, please find the final version of the letter drafted to solicit input from the stakeholder groups and constituencies; this letter was sent to the chairs of each of the SG/Cs yesterday.</div><div><br></div><div>In addition, it was agreed on today’s call that at least for the moment, the group would not break up into sub groups and would instead work together over the list to debate the following item from the group’s work plan: "Develop potential considerations (e.g. qualifying requirements, authentication criteria and appeal processes) for IGOs and INGOs that would be relevant to their use of dispute resolution proceedings (existing or new)”</div><div><br></div><div>The WG may want to consider the following questions when thinking about this item:</div><ul><li><div class="oneComWebmail-html oneComWebmail-mail"><div class="oneComWebmail-body"><div><font color="#333333">What might be a justifiable, principled basis for “standing” other than TM rights, whether under the UDRP, URS or a new dispute resolution procedure?</font></div></div></div></li><li><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;"><div class="oneComWebmail-html oneComWebmail-mail"><div class="oneComWebmail-body"><div><font color="#333333">Assuming for the moment that sovereign immunity is a problem for IGOs (pending responses from the GAC and the IGOs), what type of appeal process other than what is now in the UDRP and URS might be a solution that would still offer adequate protection to registrants?</font></div></div></div></span></li></ul><div><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;">Best,</span></div><div><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;">Steve</span></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;"><b><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Steven Chan</span></b><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br>Sr. Policy Manager<br><br><b>ICANN<br></b>12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536<br><a href="mailto:steve.chan@icann.org" title="blocked::mailto:karen.lettner@icann.org" style="color: blue;">steve.chan@icann.org<br></a><br>direct: +1.310.301.3886<br>mobile: +1.310.339.4410</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">tel: +1.310.301.5800<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">fax: +1.310.823.8649</span></p></div></body></html>