<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
        {font-family:Wingdings;
        panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
        {font-family:"Cambria Math";
        panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
        {font-family:DengXian;
        panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
        {font-family:Calibri;
        panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
        {font-family:"\@DengXian";
        panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
        {margin:0in;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:11.0pt;
        font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:blue;
        text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:purple;
        text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
        {mso-style-priority:34;
        margin-top:0in;
        margin-right:0in;
        margin-bottom:0in;
        margin-left:.5in;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:11.0pt;
        font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
        {mso-style-name:msonormal;
        mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
        margin-right:0in;
        mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
        margin-left:0in;
        font-size:11.0pt;
        font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
        {mso-style-type:personal-reply;
        font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
        color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
        {mso-style-type:export-only;
        font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
        {size:8.5in 11.0in;
        margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
        {page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
        {mso-list-id:1622766983;
        mso-list-type:hybrid;
        mso-list-template-ids:1026699982 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
        {mso-level-number-format:bullet;
        mso-level-text:;
        mso-level-tab-stop:none;
        mso-level-number-position:left;
        text-indent:-.25in;
        font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
        {mso-level-number-format:bullet;
        mso-level-text:o;
        mso-level-tab-stop:none;
        mso-level-number-position:left;
        text-indent:-.25in;
        font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
        {mso-level-number-format:bullet;
        mso-level-text:;
        mso-level-tab-stop:none;
        mso-level-number-position:left;
        text-indent:-.25in;
        font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
        {mso-level-number-format:bullet;
        mso-level-text:;
        mso-level-tab-stop:none;
        mso-level-number-position:left;
        text-indent:-.25in;
        font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
        {mso-level-number-format:bullet;
        mso-level-text:o;
        mso-level-tab-stop:none;
        mso-level-number-position:left;
        text-indent:-.25in;
        font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
        {mso-level-number-format:bullet;
        mso-level-text:;
        mso-level-tab-stop:none;
        mso-level-number-position:left;
        text-indent:-.25in;
        font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
        {mso-level-number-format:bullet;
        mso-level-text:;
        mso-level-tab-stop:none;
        mso-level-number-position:left;
        text-indent:-.25in;
        font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
        {mso-level-number-format:bullet;
        mso-level-text:o;
        mso-level-tab-stop:none;
        mso-level-number-position:left;
        text-indent:-.25in;
        font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
        {mso-level-number-format:bullet;
        mso-level-text:;
        mso-level-tab-stop:none;
        mso-level-number-position:left;
        text-indent:-.25in;
        font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
        {margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
        {margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Paul and everyone,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Staff is taking the liberty here of addressing your specific question about Professor Swaine’s memo, including your concern that it may have analyzed a situation where it is not the IGO that commences proceedings but rather is the subject
 of proceedings against it by a trademark owner. We hope the following extracts from the memo will be useful in clarifying the basis on which Professor Swaine gave his opinion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">In his memo, Professor Swaine notes that he
<i>“focuses on the most likely scenario: that in which an IGO, possessing rights in a name, abbreviation, emblem or the like arising under the Paris Convention … has complained and prevailed before an administrative panel in Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
 Policy (“Policy” or “UDRP”)  proceedings against a domain-name registrant—resulting in an order of cancellation or transfer to which the losing registrant objects by commencing a judicial action … “</i> (see Page 77 of the Working Group’s Initial Report, at
 Annex G).<o:p></o:p></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">He notes that
<i>“how matters unfold from that point [following the registrant’s filing suit] will depend on national law”</i> (Page 81, Annex G) as to the question, “<i>whether—in light of an IGO’s assent to Mutual Jurisdiction—its immunity remains.  Here, the more likely
 answer is that it would not … The grant of Mutual Jurisdiction would likely establish such a waiver, as it would for a state entity otherwise entitled to foreign sovereign immunity. This waiver would be construed narrowly, but it would likely permit proceeding
 against an IGO in at least some domestic courts. The overall answer, then, is contingent.  If there were no Mutual Jurisdiction clause, an IGO might be entitled to immunity from judicial process; in the status quo, however, it likely would not.  Equitable
 considerations might influence any judicial analysis” </i>(Page 78, Annex G).<i><o:p></o:p></i></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">Concluding that “<i>In short, the Mutual Jurisdiction clause means that participating IGOs will have agreed to the possibility of a judicial process, notwithstanding any immunity to
 which they otherwise would be entitled.  This will loom largest in cases in which the IGO is the complainant and benefited from an initial panel decision in its favor, such that the decision to resort to judicial proceedings against the IGO—and the risks that
 creates for adverse results—is made by the private party”</i> (Page 82, Annex G), Professor Swaine focuses the remainder of his memo on this scenario.<o:p></o:p></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">As part of his analysis, Professor Swaine also proposed a number of alternative policy proposals for the Working Group’s consideration, including possibly amending the Mutual Jurisdiction
 clause or arbitration. These were noted and discussed on several Working Group calls in late 2016, prior to the issuance of the Initial Report in January 2017.<o:p></o:p></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">While the above summary cannot reflect the entirety or depth of Professor Swaine’s advice, staff thought it might be helpful to recall these points given the question raised by Paul. The full memo was attached to the Initial Report as Annex
 G: <a href="https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-19jan17-en.pdf">
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-19jan17-en.pdf</a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks and cheers<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Mary & Steve <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 10:49<br>
<b>To: </b>"Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com><br>
<b>Cc: </b>"haforrestesq@gmail.com" <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, "Donna.Austin@team.neustar" <Donna.Austin@team.neustar>, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>, "rafik.dammak@gmail.com" <rafik.dammak@gmail.com><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailOriginalBody">Dear Philip,<br>
<br>
In your reply to George Kirikos you stated:<br>
<br>
“If it is judicial proceedings them [sic] of course an IGO's initiation of process indicates an implicit waiver of judicial immunity.”<br>
<br>
Thank you that is helpful. <br>
<br>
When I asked last year that the working group consider cases where an IGO could be entitled to immunity (i.e. when a TM holder seeks to secure a domain name owned by an IGO) I was told by those leading the working group that this scenario was not within the
 working group’s charter.<br>
<br>
Swaine is an analysis of cases where an IGO is entitled to jurisdictional immunity in judicial forums. Given you have just stated:
<br>
<br>
“If it is judicial proceedings them [sic] of course an IGO's initiation of process indicates an implicit waiver of judicial immunity.”<br>
<br>
I fail to see how you can ever reconcile Swaine with ever being relevant to the working group’s final report. I don’t doubt it was expensive and interesting but if you want it to remain in the final report please can you reply showing how it could be in any
 way considered relevant?<br>
<br>
Yours sincerely,<br>
<br>
<br>
Paul<o:p></o:p></a></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Corwin, Philip <</span><a href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">pcorwin@verisign.com</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">>
 wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><a name="m_-5601499089594127668__MailEndCompose">Paul:</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">Philip
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Philip S. Corwin</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Policy Counsel</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">VeriSign, Inc.</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D12061-2BBluemont-2BWay-2B-250D-250AReston-2C-2BVA-2B20190-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=fHE_Cr9toYeLCsl-trxHT_K7CdrHZ4uAVUnv57xOoj8&s=CoaOz-PewsfP8inMwD1N5msXqqp7rInZbzZOhQAWtCc&e="><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span lang="EN" style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">12061
 Bluemont Way[maps.google.com]</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span lang="EN" style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
Reston, VA 20190</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">703-948-4648/Direct</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">571-342-7489/Cell</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><i><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey</span></i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b>From:</b> Paul Tattersfield [mailto:</span><a href="mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">gpmgroup@gmail.com</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 19, 2018 7:32 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Corwin, Philip <</span><a href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">pcorwin@verisign.com</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">><br>
<b>Cc:</b> </span><a href="mailto:icann@leap.com" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">icann@leap.com</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">; Donna.Austin@team.neustar;
</span><a href="mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">haforrestesq@gmail.com</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">;
</span><a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">;
</span><a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">Dear Philip,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">OK lets settle this once and for all:
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">Show me examples of where an IGO is entitled to immunity after initiating proceedings. In either the initial proceedings or any follow-on
 proceedings?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">Any jurisdiction will do, any matter will do......
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">If you can not then Swaine is irrelevant to what the working group is considering.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">Yours sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">Paul.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Corwin, Philip <</span><a href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">pcorwin@verisign.com</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">>
 wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><a name="m_-5601499089594127668_m_867115153476462">Paul:</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">For the record, and in regard to this –<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">Other than speaking with Susan in their individual capacity as WG members the co-chairs had no control over the content of her report.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">Philip<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Philip S. Corwin</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Policy Counsel</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">VeriSign, Inc.</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D12061-2BBluemont-2BWay-2B-250D-250AReston-2C-2BVA-2B20190-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=fHE_Cr9toYeLCsl-trxHT_K7CdrHZ4uAVUnv57xOoj8&s=CoaOz-PewsfP8inMwD1N5msXqqp7rInZbzZOhQAWtCc&e=" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span lang="EN" style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">12061
 Bluemont Way[maps.google.com]</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span lang="EN" style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><br>
Reston, VA 20190</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">703-948-4648/Direct</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">571-342-7489/Cell</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><i><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey</span></i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><b>From:</b> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:</span><a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Paul Tattersfield<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 19, 2018 5:01 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> George Kirikos <</span><a href="mailto:icann@leap.com" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">icann@leap.com</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">><br>
<b>Cc:</b> </span><a href="mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">Donna.Austin@team.neustar</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">;
 Heather Forrest <</span><a href="mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">haforrestesq@gmail.com</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">>;
</span><a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">;
</span><a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">Dear ICANN,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">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<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">Briefly, I would also like to point out:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">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.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">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!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">Yours  sincerely,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">Paul.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:38 AM, George Kirikos <</span><a href="mailto:icann@leap.com" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">icann@leap.com</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">>
 wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">Hi folks,<br>
<br>
With regards to the Summary Report which is to be discussed tomorrow,<br>
there are several parts of it that I disagree with, which I'll discuss<br>
orally tomorrow during our call. However, some parts deserve a written<br>
response, given that they contain supporting links (and the WebEx<br>
interface really sucks, compared to Adobe Connect) so it's best to<br>
post them in advance of the call.<br>
<br>
1. On page 2, it's asserted that "the number of active participants is<br>
extremely low" (it's also repeated on page 3, i.e. "small number of<br>
participants' views"). However, that's not consistent with the facts.<br>
For example, the IRTP-D PDP, the most recently completed GNSO PDP<br>
according to:<br>
<br>
</span><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_inactive&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=fHE_Cr9toYeLCsl-trxHT_K7CdrHZ4uAVUnv57xOoj8&s=2Pum4Md0vfHMKn5AUBAH3Z-j6dHKCuF_ZhREl6ZbzXU&e=" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive[gnso.icann.org]</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><br>
<br>
has its attendance logs at:<br>
<br>
</span><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_ITPIPDWG_Attendance-2BLog&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=fHE_Cr9toYeLCsl-trxHT_K7CdrHZ4uAVUnv57xOoj8&s=SM46RS2yu2NqlCCV6jC_TqeffNSm5NO7Hrg2Z_zxdzw&e=" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">https://community.icann.org/display/ITPIPDWG/Attendance+Log[community.icann.org]</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><br>
<br>
If one adds up the "total attended" column, and divide it by the total<br>
number of meetings, one obtains the average attendance per meeting:<br>
<br>
Sum of total attended column = 553<br>
Total meetings = 56<br>
Average = 9.88 per meeting<br>
<br>
It is of note that both the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board adopted<br>
their recommendations:<br>
<br>
</span><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_active_irtp-2Dd&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=fHE_Cr9toYeLCsl-trxHT_K7CdrHZ4uAVUnv57xOoj8&s=j2Zvmixa4aRhzYenT-dnA022yco2l1JnPBILd7c6P2A&e=" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-d[gnso.icann.org]</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><br>
<br>
Now, let's compare this to the IGO PDP and its attendance records:<br>
<br>
</span><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_gnsoicrpmpdp_Attendance-2BRecords&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=fHE_Cr9toYeLCsl-trxHT_K7CdrHZ4uAVUnv57xOoj8&s=mwySLJqja9rtF5SFHTy4NbNmZuRg0TzTEP7xPbL3BMk&e=" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Attendance+Records[community.icann.org]</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><br>
<br>
Sum of total attended column = 711<br>
Total meetings = 71<br>
Average = 10.01 per meeting<br>
<br>
So, there has actually been HIGHER average attendance (10.01 vs 9.88<br>
per meeting) in this IGO PDP, compared to the IRTP-D whose work was<br>
successfully completed.<br>
<br>
2. On page 3, it's claimed that adoption of Option 4 "will require a<br>
Charter amendment" for that other PDP." I'm not convinced that that's<br>
a requirement. The RPM PDP charter is at:<br>
<br>
</span><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_RARPMRIAGPWG_WG-2BCharter-3Fpreview-3D3D_5872-3D9944_58730036_Charter-2520for-2520RPM-2520PDP-5Ffinal.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=fHE_Cr9toYeLCsl-trxHT_K7CdrHZ4uAVUnv57xOoj8&s=ps70jf_1KqUAI3uRTbpQJ4U149wbZN0CHdG6lKySm40&e=" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+Charter?preview=3D/5872=<br>
9944/58730036/Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final.pdf[community.icann.org]</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><br>
<br>
and states on page 3 of the charter that:<br>
<br>
"(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts<br>
In the course of its work, the Working Group should monitor the<br>
progress of and, where appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN<br>
groups that are working on topics that may overlap with or<br>
***otherwise provide useful input to this PDP.***<br>
....<br>
In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into<br>
consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT<br>
Review, and ***any other relevant GNSO policy development***"<br>
<br>
(emphasis added)<br>
<br>
So, I think this situation was already covered by the RPM PDP's<br>
current charter, and doesn't need an amendment.<br>
<br>
As I mentioned earlier, there are other parts of the Summary Report I<br>
have concerns about, but I'll save them for tomorrow's call, as they<br>
don't require any links/quotes.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
George Kirikos<br>
416-588-0269<br>
</span><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=fHE_Cr9toYeLCsl-trxHT_K7CdrHZ4uAVUnv57xOoj8&s=V1eNh6UuyYEnssdELGy5BGrOMHYiXX7md_UYRrQBKek&e=" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">http://www.leap.com/[leap.com]</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><br>
<br>
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <</span><a href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">mary.wong@icann.org</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">>
 wrote:<br>
> Dear all,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP Working<br>
> Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan mentions in her 10<br>
> April email (below). You should already have received the calendar<br>
> invitation and call details for the next Working Group call, currently<br>
> scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of 1600 UTC. Susan<br>
> will be on the call to discuss the report and proposed next steps with<br>
> everyone.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Thanks and cheers<br>
><br>
> Mary & Steve<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> From: Susan Kawaguchi <</span><a href="mailto:susankpolicy@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">susankpolicy@gmail.com</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">><br>
> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26<br>
> To: "</span><a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">"
 <</span><a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">><br>
> Cc: Heather Forrest <</span><a href="mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">haforrestesq@gmail.com</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">>,
 Mary Wong<br>
> <</span><a href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">mary.wong@icann.org</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">>, Steve Chan <</span><a href="mailto:steve.chan@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">steve.chan@icann.org</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">><br>
> Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working<br>
> Group<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group<br>
> members,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this Working<br>
> Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process that was set out<br>
> in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during ICANN61 and following.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a report for<br>
> the Working Group on the input received at and since ICANN61, with<br>
> recommendations on next steps from me and Heather Forrest, the GNSO Chair.<br>
> We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this week, for<br>
> discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual time next<br>
> Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to present a summary of<br>
> the report and its recommendations, and answer questions from WG members.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly. Bear in<br>
> mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate arrangements will be<br>
> made to support our call.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide me<br>
> with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of the group<br>
> on this challenging policy area.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Kind regards,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Susan Kawaguchi<br>
><br>
> Councilor for the Business Constituency<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">> _______________________________________________<br>
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list<br>
> </span><a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><br>
> </span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list<br>
</span><a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><br>
</span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp" target="_blank"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"></span></a><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailOriginalBody"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>