[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] - Proposed Agenda for WG call on Thursday 20 April 2017 at 1600 UTC

Tue Apr 18 22:17:56 UTC 2017

Dear WG Members,

The proposed agenda, and associated links and documents, for the upcoming WG call this Thursday 20 April 2017 at 1600 UTC is as follows; please also note that this call has been scheduled for 90 minutes:

1.            Roll call/updates to SOI

2.            Discuss specific additional comments from GNSO members and from other community participants with substantive suggestions

3.            WG to note level of support for various recommendations

4.            Agree on list of topics identified as requiring additional WG discussion or review (see below)

5.            Next steps/next meeting

For agenda Item 2, the co-chairs recommend that the following comments be discussed:

·         United Nations - https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/pdf28tKc4pChA.pdf 

·         Internet Commerce Association - https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/pdfb23CpD8fIN.pdf

·         International Atomic Energy Agency - https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/pdf9oI6MbLTKZ.pdf

·         World Bank - https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/pdfzzHOSpXFGP.pdf

·         UNESCO - https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/pdfuushNeK4of.pdf

·         Universal Postal Union - https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/msg00045.html

·         International Finance Corporation - https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/docxl9X1pa8s2y.docx

In addition, we will review the public comment review tool (updated and attached), to make sure that we have discussed all substantive comments. We may want to review some of the comments from individuals during this exercise.

For agenda Item 3, staff has attempted to tally the level of support for each of the recommendations, as well as the options for recommendation 4. Note that in the tally, we did not separately include organizations that were supportive of other comments (e.g., from WIPO, OECD, etc.). This information is captured in the attached Excel sheet.

For agenda Item 4, and for purposes of moving forward after next Thursday, here is a list of the new or additional facts, legal arguments and points for consideration that staff has identified from the WG’s last two calls:

1.       Lack of suitability of Article 6ter as a legal basis for standing (various comments submitted)

·         What are the alternatives (GAC list, trademark law, unregistered (i.e. what our American members call “common law”) rights, consumer protection statutes, others)?

·         Alternatively, is there a way to scale back our recommendation on 6ter, or to have a recommendation that says you first need 6ter to establish procedural standing and it must be coupled with a substantive legal right of some sort?

2.       Opposition to Recommendation #4

·         Three reasons provided by OECD

·         World Bank commented on reconsidering feasibility of the assignee option

·         Did WG ignore or misinterpret part of the Swaine opinion (OECD, World Bank)?

3.       Some support emerging for Option #2

4.       Further review of arbitration as an option

·         See the New York Convention (OECD)

·         Is there a difference between recommending arbitration as the sole option for appealing a UDRP decision vs filing a separate, new proceeding in a national court (which is not an appeal from a UDRP panel)? 

5.       Further discussion of a separate DRP (GAC, WIPO, IPC)

·         See specific recommendations from IPC comment

·         Note that WG had tabled discussion of 2007 draft procedure from ICANN staff until after completion of initial review of all comments

6.       Function and scope of a Policy Guidance document

·         Cannot be used for cases where a recommendation amounts to a substantive change of the UDRP (e.g. if Recommendation 4 Option #1 is adopted)

·         Note question on Recommendation 3 by World Bank

If you have any questions or comments, please let us know.

Best,

Steve

Steven Chan

Sr. Policy Manager

ICANN

12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536

steve.chan at icann.org

mobile: +1.310.339.4410

office tel: +1.310.301.5800

office fax: +1.310.823.8649

Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.

Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO

Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/

http://gnso.icann.org/en/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20170418/a3b2c8ae/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Public Comment Review Tool - Initial Report - 14 April 2017_Review.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 102669 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20170418/a3b2c8ae/PublicCommentReviewTool-InitialReport-14April2017_Review-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Recommendations_Level of Support.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 36863 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20170418/a3b2c8ae/Recommendations_LevelofSupport-0001.xlsx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2018 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20170418/a3b2c8ae/smime-0001.p7s>