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

Thu Jul 5 13:20:08 UTC 2018

I wouldn't support removal of that last line of Option #1's
explanation. That's an important line. If anything, we should be
expanding the explanatory text, not reducing it. [changing 'mirror' to
'align' is fine] That's a point I made (#17) in my earlier comments:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001349.html

Given the compressed timeline [well, not really a 'given', since we're
arguing about it!], rather than expanding each of them further, the
better option might be to leave expanded text to the minority reports,
as I noted in comment #17.

By the way, none of the HTML formatting appears properly in the web archive:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-July/001357.html

When suggesting changes, it's best to keep that in mind, so that
there's a proper historical record on the mailing list.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 8:59 AM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup at gmail.com> wrote:
> In section 2.1.1 under Recommendation #5 (pages 17 – 21) please can we
> consider making the following changes?
>
> Option #1 text
>
> This option was suggested to mirror  align with the situation where an IGO,
> instead of filing a UDRP or URS complaint, chooses to file a lawsuit in
> court. In such an event, the IGO will not be entitled to any jurisdictional
> immunity (having elected to initiate the proceedings) and the court will
> proceed to decide the case on its merits. Similarly, where an IGO chooses to
> defend its immunity claim against a registrant in court and succeeds, the
> legal proceedings should be conducted as if the UDRP or URS determination
> was never made.
>
>
> Option #3 text
>
> This option was suggested in an attempt to balance the group’s agreement
> that, for all six options, any additional outcomes should be permitted only
> after an IGO has successfully claimed immunity in court with GAC advice for
> appeals to be handled by an arbitral tribunal rather than via judicial
> proceedings.
>
> This is very misleading option #3 existed prior to #2, #4, #5, #6
>
>
> Option #6 text
>
> This option was suggested following a review of the mandatory mediation step
> that is included in Nominet’s DRP for the .uk domain, and includes the
> ability to introduce an arbitration component (if the registrant also has
> the ability to choose this option) as well as aspects of Option 1.
>
> This option was suggested following a review of the mandatory mediation step
> that is included in Nominet’s DRP for the .uk domain, and includes the
> ability to introduce an arbitration component (which the registrant is free
> to choose as an alternative to judicial proceedings) as well as aspects of
> Option 1.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 12:39 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> 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 6ter 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 6ter 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 6ter, 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp