[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda for WG meeting this week and NEW draft Deliberations section of WG Initial Report

Tue Dec 6 20:44:01 UTC 2016

Attached are my revisions for sections 4 & 6...

Sincerely,
Jay

This e-mail & any attachment(s) is(/are) confidential & only for the
intended recipient(s).  If you are not an intended recipient, please
immediately notify me, delete this e-mail & all attachment(s).

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:

> Attached are my (mostly) stylistic and grammatical revisions of Section 6.
>
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/Cell
>
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-boun
> ces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin
> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 7:04 PM
> To: George Kirikos; gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda for WG meeting this week and NEW
> draft Deliberations section of WG Initial Report
>
> Thanks George.
>
> Other WG members who wish to submit comments or proposed edits should do
> so within the next 24 hours.
>
> Best to all, Philip
>
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> Virtualaw LLC
> 1155 F Street, NW
> Suite 1050
> Washington, DC 20004
> 202-559-8597/Direct
> 202-559-8750/Fax
> 202-255-6172/Cell
>
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-boun
> ces at icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
> Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 7:01 PM
> To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda for WG meeting this week and NEW
> draft Deliberations section of WG Initial Report
>
> Hi folks,
>
> My comments/thoughts on the draft section 4 and section 6 are below:
>
>
> SECTION 4 COMMENTS
>
>
> 1. page 3 (last paragraph) "…..to prohibit third party use of those
> identifiers as trademarks…." -- Of course, it's not a total or absolute
> prohibition, so the language of that paragraph should be altered slightly
> (i.e. perhaps insert the word "confusing" after "prohibit" for simplicity).
>
> 2. page 4: bottom; we might want to note that we also had a group
> conference call with Professor Swaine after his preliminary report
>
> 3. page 5, first paragraph, first sentence: perhaps change the word
> "opinion" to "research and analysis" (otherwise it suggests that the
> conclusions are subject to mere whim); or perhaps add "expert" before
> "opinion" to add more gravitas to the statement
>
> 4. page 6, first line "Issue Report preparatory" -- should that be
> "Issues" (plural), and I'm not sure about the grammar of "preparatory"
> in that sentence…it's awkward. Perhaps change "preparatory" to "prior"??
>
> 5. page 6, 2nd paragraph, middle, "…for [the GNSO…" opening square bracket
> has no matching closing square bracket…??
>
> 6. page 9: in the table, middle column (or 3rd column), we should note
> that the Article 6ter registration SUPPLEMENTS existing ability IGOs to
> have standing (e.g. via common law or registered marks).
>
> 7. page 10: middle column, top row (continuation from prior page) -- the
> part "but an arbitration option can be created…" -- that's just
> *one* of the options (probably the minority view at this point); the other
> option, probably the majority view, was to vitiate the UDRP/URS decision if
> immunity was attained during a court appeal). So, perhaps the section in
> the brackets should be removed, or altered.
>
> 8. page 10: second column, bottom row, middle column; like my point #6
> above, the 6ter registration *SUPPLEMENTS* existing ability to have
> standing by IGOs.
>
> 9. page 9 & page 10: (column 1): the IGO proposal is listed as referencing
> only "IGO acronymn" -- I assume that should be "IGO *name* or acronym"??
>
> 10. page 11, 2nd row, middle column: "or have trademarked same" -- that's
> imprecise? I think we mean "or who have registered or unregistered common
> law trademarks"
>
>
>
> SECTION 6 COMMENTS
>
>
>
> A. page 1, 2nd paragraph of "General" section -- the first sentence is a
> bit misleading, since it simply says that "the answers to these questions
> are no" -- If we look at what the questions were, that statement is
> misleading. The first question had a faulty premise that IGOs and INGOs
> *don't* already have access to the UDRP and URS. It's clear that as a
> working group that we've provided evidence that IGOs and INGOs *already* do
> have access to the UDRP and URS. So, the real PDP was about possible
> expansion of that access and/or "adjusting the playing field" in favor of
> one side or the other.
>
> B. page 3: some formatting issues in bullet point 3 (e.g. extra 'dot'
> before "Furthermore" and after "Charter"
>
> C. page 3: middle paragraph, last sentence --- "The WGfurther" -- should
> add a space after "WG" to make it "The WG further"
>
> D. page 3, bullet point 1 (near bottom): first sentence, perhaps make it
> plural for "Final Issues Report"?? (i.e. Issue vs Issues??)
>
> E. page 4, last paragraph of Recommendation #1: it talks about revisiting
> our work "if concrete proposals emerge* --- well, we know that those
> concrete proposals were made by the IGOs at a late stage; so, perhaps we
> need to modify the language of that paragraph a bit?
> (i.e. we received the concrete proposals, and analyzed them, etc., i.e. in
> Section 4; although, I still believe that the table in Section
> 4 comparing the recommendations should perhaps be moved to *after* section
> 6, to make sense chronologically; i.e. we analyzed/contrasted the IGOs
> Small Group proposal *after* our own recommendations).
>
> F. page 4, Recommendation 2, last sentence -- really it's for the benefit
> of panelists, registrants, *and* potential IGO complainants.
>
> G. page 5, 2nd last paragraph, last sentence "…in the absence of their
> possessing trademark or common law rights…." I think the word "registered"
> belongs before "trademark" (i.e. the common law rights are *unregistered*
> *trademark* rights; i.e. BOTH are trademark rights, one set registered, the
> other set are common law).
>
> H. page 9, further discussion of option 2: for the 3rd bullet point
> (crossing into the following page), perhaps it can be expanded, to
> highlight the fact that we know that UDRP decisions have been successfully
> overturned in the courts on numerous occasions, even when there were
> unanimous 3-panelist UDRP decisions. Furthermore, allowing mandatory and
> binding arbitration without recourse to the court creates the circumstances
> for a permanent DIVERGENCE of jurisprudence between the arbitration bodies
> and the national laws or courts. i.e.
> the existence of the appeal mechanism to national courts is of critical
> importance as a check and balance on the entire UDRP/URS system, because it
> ensures that the UDRP/URS cannot perpetually expand to give rights that are
> greater than those that exist in the national courts (which would then
> create forum shopping, where complainants would use the UDRP/URS to obtain
> relief that they could never achieve in the courts). Without these checks
> and balances, the power of "rogue" panelists/providers and the incentives
> for forum shopping grow considerably, undermining the purpose and integrity
> of the entire system.
>
> I. page 14, last paragraph of Recommendation #4 (i.e. directly above
> Recommendation #5); as discussed in our last conference call, the paragraph
> needs to be softened somewhat, i.e. the "IGOs will have to submit to" line
> is not accurate, given that we've identified workarounds for the IGOs
> regarding assignee/licensee bringing the UDRP/URS, in order to shield the
> IGO.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
> > Thank you for these documents, Mary.
> >
> >
> >
> > To reprise some decisions made on today’s WG call:
> >
> > ·         On our next call of December 8th we are aiming to complete and
> > approve the revised draft of Section 6 and to perhaps do the same, or
> > at least get very close, in regard to the new draft of Section 4.
> > Therefore, all WG members are asked to review those attachments and
> > forward any comments and proposed revisions to the WG email list no
> > later than Tuesday,
> > 12/6 in order to give staff sufficient time to prepare new versions
> > for the
> > 12/8 call.
> >
> > ·         On the 12/15 call we will wrap up work on Section 4 (if not
> > already done) and review other “boilerplate” report sections that
> > shall be forthcoming from staff over the next two weeks.
> >
> > ·         Depending on the state of our work and holiday considerations,
> we
> > will meet one final time this year on either 12/22 or 12/29. The aim
> > for that meeting is to approve the final draft of the Preliminary
> > Report and publishing it for public comment.
> >
> > ·         Presuming that the draft is published for comment in early
> > January, the 40 day comment period will end in mid-February. If a
> > significant number of public comments are received prior to the end of
> > the comment period we may hold an interim WG meeting to review and
> > discuss those comments. Following the close of the comment period we
> > will hold several meetings to consider them and discuss any proposed
> > adjustments to the document. While recognizing that it may not be
> > feasible, we will aim to publish a Final report just prior to the
> > Helsinki meeting. If that is not possible then we anticipate
> > publication of the Final Report in the late March to mid-April timespan.
> >
> >
> >
> > Let me know if you have any comments or questions. Please take some
> > time over the next few days to carefully review Sections 4 and 6 – our
> > wok is almost done and we aim to publish the highest quality document
> > possible on this complex subject.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks and best regards,
> >
> > Philip
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
> >
> > Virtualaw LLC
> >
> > 1155 F Street, NW
> >
> > Suite 1050
> >
> > Washington, DC 20004
> >
> > 202-559-8597/Direct
> >
> > 202-559-8750/Fax
> >
> > 202-255-6172/Cell
> >
> >
> >
> > Twitter: @VlawDC
> >
> >
> >
> > "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
> >
> >
> >
> > From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org
> > [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 1:12 PM
> > To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> > Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda for WG meeting this week and NEW
> > draft Deliberations section of WG Initial Report
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> >
> >
> > The proposed agenda for our Working Group meeting this Thursday is as
> > follows:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1.       Roll call and updates to Statements of Interest
> >
> > 2.       Review of discussions at ICANN57 – GAC Communique and WG open
> > session
> >
> > 3.       Confirm WG comments in draft Initial Report concerning its
> review
> > of the IGO Small Group Proposal
> >
> > 4.       Confirm intended date of publication of Initial Report and other
> > milestones leading to the Final Report
> >
> > 5.       Any other business
> >
> >
> >
> > For #2, here is the link to the GAC Communique:
> > https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/GAC%20ICANN%205
> > 7%20Communique.pdf?version=6&modificationDate=1478668059355&api=v2,
> > and to the transcript of the Working Group session at ICANN57:
> > http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/c3/Transcript%20IGO-
> INGO%20CRP%20Hyderabad%2007%20Nov%202016.pdf.
> > We note that a link to the slides that were used at that WG session
> > had been circulated previously (see below).
> >
> >
> >
> > In addition, for #2, WG members may wish to consider the question that
> > was raised by the representative of the United States Patent and
> > Trademark Office (USPTO) who attended the WG open session: “whether
> > [standing kicks in at the time that a notification is submitted to
> > WIPO or whether it kicks in once it's disseminated to all of the Paris
> > Convention member countries and whether they decide whether or not to
> > reject or not reject that notification.”
> >
> >
> >
> > For #3, please find attached an initial draft of what will be Section
> > 4 (Deliberations of the PDP Working Group) of our Initial Report
> > (where Section 6 – which we have been discussing – contains our
> > Preliminary Recommendations). As noted previously, Section 4
> > complements Section 6 by providing both the process background and
> > related narrative to the actual text of the preliminary recommendations.
> >
> >
> >
> > For purposes of the call this week, staff suggests a focus on Section
> > 4.4 (where the process background and the WG’s conclusions on the
> > Small Group Proposal are described and tabulated).
> >
> >
> >
> > We are also attaching a clean copy of the latest version of Section 6,
> > updated following the last WG call before ICANN57. Please note that in
> > the interests of getting the draft Deliberations document out to
> > everyone as soon as we could, staff has not yet done a full sweep
> > through the Section 6 document to spot overlaps and gaps.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks and cheers
> >
> > Mary
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
> > Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 12:23
> > To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
> > Subject: Slides from the Working Group's open community discussion at
> > ICANN57
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> >
> >
> > The slides from our Working Group’s open session yesterday at ICANN57,
> > where our likely initial recommendations were presented to the
> > community, are available here:
> > http://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann572016/35/Updated%20IGO-ING
> O%20CRP%20WG%20Slides%20-%20ICANN57.pdf.
> >
> >
> >
> > Once the transcript and recording are published on the ICANN57 meeting
> > website, we will provide a link to them and the slides from our
> > Working Group wiki page.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks and cheers
> >
> > Mary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mary Wong
> >
> > Senior Policy Director
> >
> > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> >
> > Email: mary.wong at icann.org
> >
> > Telephone: +1-603-5744889
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 2016.0.7859 / Virus Database: 4664/13314 - Release Date:
> > 10/30/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20161206/df225cac/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Redlined - CLEAN updated Section 6 - 30 Oct.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 61522 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20161206/df225cac/Redlined-CLEANupdatedSection6-30Oct-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Sec 4 redline edits to DRAFT - Deliberations - 28 Nov 2016.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 58546 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20161206/df225cac/Sec4redlineeditstoDRAFT-Deliberations-28Nov2016-0001.docx>