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

Wed Apr 19 07:25:18 UTC 2017

Hi George,

I can confirm that we ofcourse also will review comments from individuals, members or non-members of our WG. If not this week, by next week.

All the best,

Petter
-- 
Petter Rindforth, LL M

Fenix Legal KB
Stureplan 4c, 4tr
114 35 Stockholm
Sweden
Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu
www.fenixlegal.eu

NOTICE
This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail.
Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu
Thank you

19 april 2017 01:30:06 +02:00, skrev George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>:

> Hi folks,
> 
> Are we planning to review all the comments? There are comments by
> individuals opposed to the elimination of their access to the courts,
> whose comments do not appear to be reflected in the spreadsheet tool
> (i.e they should be counted for Option 1 in question 4).
> 
> Even my own comments didn't seem to be captured well. I wrote "As a
> participant in the PDP working group, I generally agree with the
> findings in the report,...." but then that didn't count as a "Support"
> for each of the recommendations, except for #5 where I explicitly
> wrote:
> 
> <https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/msg00004.html>
> 
> "I had another brief comment to make on a separate topic, namely reimbursement
> or subsidies by ICANN of IGO costs for the UDRP/URS. I believe this would be
> the wrong approach, given that nations do not subsidize IGO costs for their
> legal actions, etc."
> 
> (although then I went on to suggest equal subsidies for both sides, in
> the event that any subsidies were to be granted)
> 
> It seems that unless one followed a strict "Agree/Disagree" format for
> each specific recommendation, then a commenter's support or
> disagreement could get lost.
> 
> e.g. Russ Smith:
> 
> <https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/msg00009.html>
> 
> "Given the failure to properly manage the UDRP the court challenge
> should remain in place. As it is currently it could be argued that an
> IGO-INGO waives their right to immunity when they agree to the
> arbitration agreement. That should be changed so any entity who files
> a UDRP explicitly waves their right to any immunity. The respondent
> should have the matter reviewed in a legitimate legal forum rather
> than some kangaroo court run by NAF and INTA members."
> 
> I'm not sure how that could be read as indifference to the two options
> in recommendation #4.
> 
> The same for:
> 
> <https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/msg00011.html>
> 
> "If you remove the court option you are removing freedom and justice from the
> hands of the people you are supposed to serve. You might as well let China
> make the rules for all mankind, it's about the same thing. Shame on you for
> even considering this draconian measure."
> 
> Doesn't look like a supporter for binding arbitration to me!
> 
> The same for:
> 
> <https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/msg00006.html>
> 
> which doesn't seem to support binding arbitration, but prefers the courts.
> 
> Or the ICA:
> 
> <https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/msg00019.html>
> <https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/pdfb23CpD8fIN.pdf>
> 
> "ICA believes that Option 1 of Recommendation 4 – vitiating a DRP
> Decision adverse to the registrant when the registrant subsequently
> appeals to a court of mutual jurisdiction and the complainant IGO then
> successfully asserts immunity – is the only option consistent with
> ICANN’s limited authority and remit."
> 
> which was supported entirely by Jay Chapman:
> 
> <https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/msg00031.html>
> 
> In conclusion, before we tackle agenda items #3 and #4, we should make
> sure we've reviewed every comment, to ensure that we've properly
> captured their sentiments.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> George
> 
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Steve Chan <<steve.chan at icann.org>> wrote:
> 
> > 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/>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20170419/4575a42d/attachment-0001.html>