[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FOR REVIEW: Updated Draft Final Report

[Paul Tattersfield]

In section 2.1.1 under Recommendation #3 under paragraph 2 (page 16 of 91)
please can we add an additional explanatory paragraph?

This recommendation originated in the Working Group’s initial preliminary
recommendation (published in its Initial Report) concerning an IGO’s
standing to file a UDRP or URS complaint based on compliance with the
communications and notification procedure under Article 6*ter* of the Paris
Convention. In that preliminary recommendation, the Working Group had made
a distinction between the procedural matter of standing and the further
need for a complainant to prove that it has also satisfied the substantive
elements required by the UDRP and URS. The Working Group had therefore
recommended that a Policy Guidance document be prepared and issued by ICANN
to clarify the applicability of Article 6*ter* as well as the other
procedural options available to IGOs. In light of the Working Group’s
subsequent decision to modify its original recommendation concerning
Article 6*ter*, its recommendation for Policy Guidance has also been
amended to refer specifically to the procedural filing options available
under the current UDRP and URS.

Policy Guidance should advise the IGOs and INGOs in the first instance to
contact the registrars of record for any domains involved in the harms they
are seeking address. The overwhelming majority of registrars are willing to
deal with such behaviour at no cost and in a timely manner for both
infringing and non infringing domains. In the unlikely event a registrar
would not wish to help ICANN has contractual provisions in place to
investigate the reasons for such a decision.

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 12:10 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear Working Group members,
>
>
>
> Staff has posted copies, in both Word and PDF formats, and in both
> redlined and clean versions, of the updated Draft Final Report for your
> review on the Working Group wiki space: https://community.icann.org/x/
> UoVHBQ. You will also find links to the most recent GAC Communique (from
> ICAN62 in Panama last week), that includes advice to the ICANN Board
> concerning our PDP, as well as the GNSO Council’s resolution also from
> Panama, requesting that we complete our Final Report by *9 July 2018*
> (the document deadline for the Council’s July meeting). We have done our
> best to capture what we believe to be the most current and agreed text,
> especially of the specific recommendations and consensus levels, but remain
> ready to make further updates and corrections as may be needed.
>
>
>
> Please note the following:
>
>    - Please *limit your suggestions for edits and corrections to
>    substantive matters* (e.g. errors of substance) rather than
>    formatting, typos, preferred word usages/phrasing, or grammar (unless there
>    are egregious errors). This will allow us to complete our work as
>    expeditiously as possible, as seems to be expected by the GNSO Council.
>    - Please *do not send back redlines* of the document, as it can be
>    difficult to track and capture multiple versions. Instead, please *send
>    your comments via email to this mailing list* so that staff can make
>    sure all substantive comments are noted and addressed.
>    - The redline was done against the last version of the draft that was
>    circulated (i.e. the 11 May document). The redlined changes that you see
>    are therefore either new additions, corrections or modifications of the
>    text from 11 May, for which members had been asked to submit comments by 22
>    May. Please therefore *do not suggest further edits to the
>    non-redlined text* unless you see egregious errors that were not
>    previously spotted (especially as much of the 11 May 2018 text was retained
>    from the January 2017 Initial Report).
>    - We have added a few comment boxes to indicate where and why certain
>    insertions/changes were made (especially as regards rationale and specific
>    suggestions made either to the 11 May document or on the recent Working
>    Group calls).
>    - We have also updated the GAC advice to include the GAC’s most recent
>    Communique, issued last week in Panama City.
>    - We have not included references to the recent and ongoing appeal
>    filed by George under Section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, as
>    that process has so far proceeded separately from the Working Group’s final
>    deliberations – but please let us know if this should be added.
>
>
>
> Process for filing Minority Statements:
>
>    - As minority statements are not reviewed or edited by the Working
>    Group or staff, they can be sent in any time. For purposes of meeting the
>    Council’s requested deadline, however, it will be helpful if you can send
>    to staff any minority statement that you may wish to file in Word format by *1200
>    UTC on Monday 9 July*.
>
>
>
> Our understanding is that Petter would like to discuss, and hopefully
> attain agreement on, any substantive errors or omissions in the report at
> our meeting this *Thursday, 5 July*. As such, please be sure to review
> the redlined changes before the call if you can. We apologize for the short
> notice, as the ICANN62 meeting last week made it impossible for us to
> complete the draft before today. (NOTE: If you wish to focus on the major
> substantive issues, you may wish to begin your review with *Section 1.2*
> (pages 3-7 of the redlined Word version) and a portion of *Section 2.1.1*
> (pages 10- 22 of the redlined Word version).)
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mary & Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180705/8e0fab90/attachment.html>