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

Thu Jul 5 20:39:24 UTC 2018

If a citation might help for Paul T's suggested text, one can refer to
Section 3.18 of the RAA:

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/abuse-2014-01-29-en
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#3.18

and the same applies for some registry operators for gTLDs:

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/abuse-contact-2014-01-29-en

A link to: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/update-on-steps-to-combat-abuse-and-illegal-activity

may also be useful.

Sincerely,

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

On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:23 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup at gmail.com> wrote:
> Further to today's call suggested non-subjective  wording for the proposed
> second paragraph
>
> 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 since registrars have an obligation under their
> agreement with ICANN to deal with such harms at no cost and in a timely
> manner for both infringing and non infringing domains.
>
>
>
> 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