[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] MP3 IGO WG - Monday 24 September 2014 at 1600 UTC

Wed Sep 24 18:21:12 UTC 2014

Dear All,

Please find the MP3 recording for IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call on Monday 24 September 2014 at 1600 UTC at:

http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-20140924-en.mp3

On page: 

http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep

The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:

 <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/

Attendees: 

Imran Ahmed Shah – NCUC

George Kirikos - Individual

Jay Chapman – Individual

Jim Bikoff – IPC

Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP

Paul Tattersfield – Individual

Petter Rindforth – IPC

Val Sherman – IPC

Griffin Barnett – IPC

Reg Levy – RySG

Kristine Dorrain – Individual

David Heasley – IPC

David Maher – RySG

Mason Cole – RySG

Kathy Kleiman - NCUC

Phil Corwin – BC

Nat Cohen – BC

Gary Campbell - GAC

Apologies:

John McGrann – RrSG

Paul Keating - NCUC

ICANN staff:

Mary Wong

Steve Chan

Nathalie Peregrine

** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **

Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/ 

Wiki page:

https://community.icann.org/x/97rhAg  

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Nathalie 

-------------------------------

 Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 24 September 2014:

Nathalie  Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the  IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting on the 24th September 2014

  George Kirikos:Hi everyone.

  Paul Tattersfield:Hi, George, everyone

  Imran Ahmed Shah:Hi Everyone, 

  George Kirikos:Hi Paul and Imran.

  Reg - M+M:Good morning, all

  Mason Cole:greetings all

  George Kirikos:Hi Reg & Mason.

  Reg - M+M:It appears, from the two UDRP proceedings we just read, that the IOC, at least, has no problem protecting its rights with the RPMs that are already in place for all rights holders.

  George Kirikos:Indeed, Reg.

  Jay Chapman:Happy Wednesday, everyone

  George Kirikos:Hi Jay.

  Kathy:Can we control the document? 

  Kathy:Tx Mary

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Osvaldo Novoa has joined the AC room

  Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all, sorry I'm late

  George Kirikos:Welcome Osvaldo.

  Nathalie  Peregrine:David Maher has joined the call

  George Kirikos:Not everyone has joined a subgroup.

  Imran Ahmed Shah:Yes, Sub Group C  has only Mike,

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Phil is not on the audio bridge

  George Kirikos:Group B hasn't "met" yet -- we were expecting last week that more volunteers would be coming forward.

  Nathalie  Peregrine:Phil Corwin has joined the AC room

  George Kirikos:Welcome, Phil.

  Philip Corwin:Apologies for joining late

  George Kirikos:Right, Jay.....that's why some outreach is appropriate.

  George Kirikos:(i.e. do a survey/mailing, based on a sample of IGOs)

  George Kirikos:They're lumped together because of the prior WG

  George Kirikos:(who didn't want to make any special rules for IGOs unless INGOs got them too....)

  Kathy:Can Staff please share the differences between IGO and INGOs - because it seems to have been a topic you have given good thought to.

  George Kirikos:[I disagree that they should be lumped together, by the way, since we shouldn't be creating 'new' law]

  Mary Wong:@Kathy, IGOs have an issue with submitting to national jurisdiction (as required by the UDRP & URS). 

  Mary Wong:INGOs do not have that problem - but both groups may have problems in the TM area as they now need to be TM owners in order to use the UDRP or URS.

  Kathy:@Mary, tx: to which treaties are the IGOs and INGOs, as different classes, tied?

  Mary Wong:@Kathy, the IGOs have relied on Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.

  Mary Wong:For INGOs, there is no specific treaty generally but for Red Cross there are the Geneva Conventions, for the IOC there is the Nairobi Treaty.

  Mary Wong:The presentation document has been unsync'ed

  Kathy:Great info, tx Mary!

  Kathy:But the URS applies only to New gTLDs

  George Kirikos:And to ccTLDs that opt in to it (e.g. .pw)

 Mary Wong:@Kathy, yes

  Kathy:And was largely intended to solve roll-out problems

  Kathy:With many more defenses!

  Mary Wong:Note, however, that one question for this WG is whether the URS should be a Consensus Policy like the UDRP

  Kathy:It would be hard for us to overrule the consensus against that conclusion by the STI which created the URS

  Gary Campbell:Hi Guys sorry to be late

  George Kirikos:One can view all the cases at http://domains.adrforum.com/decision.aspx  (change ruleset to "URS"). Easier to view with 50 decisions/page.

  Gary Campbell:Thanks George

  Nat Cohen:I believe that the USPS overreached early on by going after "postoffice.com"

  Jay Chapman:Agree, Nat

  Kathy:Good presentation, tx you!

  Nat Cohen:yes, here is the postoffice.com UDRP:

  Nat Cohen:http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/96313.htm

  Nat Cohen:Though Carolyn Marks Johnson dissented and thought that the USPS should be able to seize postoffice.com

  Nat Cohen:The other USPS loss was for post-office.com, again Carolyn Marks Johnson dissented

  Nat Cohen:http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/96761.htm

  Reg - M+M:Well that's good, for one.

  Reg - M+M:(AmericanBar.org instead of aba.org—gets me everytime, too)

  Nat Cohen:MLB.com used to be owned by a law firm

  George Kirikos:PGA.com used to be owned by the Potato Growers of Alberta.

  Paul Tattersfield: Excellent presentation, good looking slides too Kristine, thank you.

  Jay Chapman:Thanks, Kristine - valuable presentation

  Reg - M+M:My first thought is that I'm glad that the UDRP providers are loathe to rule against acronyms because they do indeed mean a very many things.

  Reg - M+M:I'm sure, however, that this means that the IOC/RC/otherI/NGOs will complain that this means that their acronyms MUST be protected at the registry level, since they're not protected by UDRP

  Reg - M+M:however, as was seen by the documentation passed around in advance of this call, I/NGOs *ARE* protected by the UDRP process

  Reg - M+M:there is no evidence to suggest that the URS will be less friendly to them

  Mary Wong:@Reg, those types of "preventative" protections (e.g. blocking, second-level withholding from registration) were dealt with by the original PDP WG. Most of their recs - except for IGO acronyms - have been accepted by the Board.

  Mary Wong:On IGO acronyms, the current discussion is on the duration and scope of TMCH protection (ie there will be no blocking of second-level IGO acronyms)

  Imran Ahmed Shah:I have a question regarding the fee charged for the Arbitration Function and the Arbitration Panel, what happend with the fee, when the issues were not resolved with in specific type and meetings?

  Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Imran, I'm not quite sure I understand your question...these are administrative hearings that result in a written decision for one party or another.  There is not really "issue resolution" that fails to happen...

  Philip Corwin:Just re-raised hand--have a Q for Mary

  George Kirikos:http://www.nominet.org.uk/disputes/resolving-domain-disputes/how-it-works

  Imran Ahmed Shah:I am taking about the fee charged for the dispute resolution by ICANN regarding the new gTLDs Applications

  Mary Wong:@Phil, do u want to type it here?

  George Kirikos:(that shows how Formal Mediation is a part of the Nominet UK DRS)

  Nat Cohen:Kristine - thanks for the presentation.  Very helpful

  Gary Campbell:Can someone explain to me the objectives of the 3 subgroups

  George Kirikos:UDRP/URS are somewhat 'all or nothing', whereas court and/or mediation can be more creative as to the outcome.

  Mary Wong:@Gary, primarily it is to "break down" the various research and early analysis tasks required by the WG Charter into manageable chunks that will facilitate informed discussion by the WG on what exactly (if anything) to do with the UDRP, URS or other process

  Philip Corwin:If the URS is not a consensus policy it would not be covered by catch-all language in RAA. So is there a specific reference to the URS in the 2013 RAA, which all registrar selers of new gTLDs are required to accept?

  Kathy:@Phil: URS is incorporated via the New gTLD Registry Agreements.

  Gary Campbell:Thanks Mary

  Philip Corwin:Understood, kathy. But what binds the registrant to accept the URS?

  Reg - M+M:ICANN requires that registries requires that registrars abide by the URS 

  Kathy:It's part of the Base New gTLD Registry Agreement, and then passed to the Registrars (at least one way) through the New gTLD Registry-Registrar Agreement that follows.

  George Kirikos:Thank you, Kristine.

  Philip Corwin:So there is a specific refernce to the URS in the 2013 RAA?

  Imran Ahmed Shah:HAve you replied to my question?

  Mary Wong:@Phil, yes - let me look up the section

  Kathy:And then in the Registrar-Registrant Agreement 

  Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Imran:  I tried to, above....did you see that?

  George Kirikos:Zak Muscovitch has studied the issue of panelist selection.

  Mary Wong:@Phil, it's Section 3.8 of the RAA, referring specifically to the UDRP and URS for Registrars (coreresponding Registry obligation noted by Red and Kathy)

  Philip Corwin:Thanks Mary.

  Mary Wong:Here's the specific language: "During the Term of this Agreement, Registrar shall have in place a policy and procedures for resolution of disputes concerning Registered Names. Until ICANN adopts an alternative Consensus Policy or other Specification or Policy with respect to the resolution of disputes concerning Registered Names, Registrar shall comply with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP") identified on ICANN's website (www.icann.org/general/consensus-policies.htm), as may be modified from time to time. Registrar shall also comply with the Uniform Rapid Suspension ("URS") procedure or its replacement, as well as with any other applicable dispute resolution procedure as required by a Registry Operator for which Registrar is providing Registrar Services."

  George Kirikos:Here's the Muscovitch study: http://www.dnattorney.com/NAFdomainnamedisputestudy2012.shtml

  Imran Ahmed Shah:@Kristine , could not understand that either my question is clear, otherwise, I explained it in next lines,,,, and I also could not understand your reply.... 

  Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Imran, we do not handle disputes over new gTLD applications?

  Kristine Dorrain-NAF:<sorry, remove the question mark>

  Mary Wong:@Imran, are you referring to the objection and dispute resolution procedures relating to new gTLD applications?

  Mary Wong:If so, that is not within the scope of this WG.

  Imran Ahmed Shah:es, including the dispute and conflict for which the mediation panels were setup

  Imran Ahmed Shah:yes

  George Kirikos:Bye everyone.

  Jay Chapman:Thanks all, have a good day/week

  Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Thanks, bye!

  Paul Tattersfield:thanks bye

 Imran Ahmed Shah:Thanks,

  Gary Campbell:Bye all

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20140924/1c529831/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5457 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20140924/1c529831/smime-0001.p7s>