[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Question about Professor Swaine's memo
Paul Tattersfield
gpmgroup at gmail.com
Fri Jun 15 08:19:18 UTC 2018
Please find attached a pdf version of my reasoning for the formal record as
the email list does not archive colours.
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:57 PM, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Dear Mary,
>
> In today’s chat room you mentioned your reply in April to my very serious
> concerns about the Swaine Memo. The only email I have on file is the one
> below. I can deal with each of the points you raise should you so wish,
> however, each of those points are dependant on the incorrect assumption
> Professor Swaine made on pages 8 & 9 of his report.(on pages 83 & 84 of the
> WG final report) that immunity rights can be transferred between the two
> scenarios where the immunity question could come before a court.
>
> I have detailed below my concerns clearly in colour for the benefit of the
> working group so anyone can quickly see where and how the professor relied
> on what I believe to be an incorrect assumption and upon which the whole of
> his report then incorrectly relies.
>
> I have researched this issue and I can not find any jurisdiction, on any
> matter (not just domain names) in any forum where an IGO would be entitled
> to jurisdictional immunity after initiating proceedings. I have asked the
> working group if anyone can refute my reasoning several times on the email
> list and I raised it on the call prior to Phillip’s resignation. Each time
> not a single person has been able to demonstrate I am in fact incorrect and
> several people have indicated they believe I am right. I have discussed
> this matter with people with a broad range of interests including people
> who have represented IGO interests at ICANN and I can not find a single
> person who can find any issue with my reasoning.
>
> Given the whole of the WG’s final report is premised on Professor Swaine’s
> assumption being correct I would be very grateful if you can show me why
> any of my reasoning in the proof below is not correct and how Professor
> Swaine can possibly be right.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56131791 which
> is marked final and dated 6/17/2016.
>
> From that document:
>
>
>
>
>
> *“3. Discussion (Bottom of page 8) The core question is whether an IGO is
> “entitled to immunity,” but the baseline assumptions may be disaggregated.
> The scope of IGO immunity would most clearly be at issue if the Mutual
> Jurisdiction provision were irrelevant and the IGO had not itself initiated
> judicial proceedings, since that would risk waiving any immunity to which
> it may be entitled, including to counterclaims. 20 This might be the case,
> for example, if a domain-name registrant sought a declaratory judgment
> against an IGO in relation to some actual or potential infringement. 21
> That scenario, though not otherwise of concern here, does usefully isolate
> the question as to whether an IGO has a legitimate expectation that it
> would be entitled to immunity absent the UDRP. If such immunity is minimal
> or uncertain, then any compromises required by the UDRP loom less large; if
> the IGO would otherwise be entitled to immunity, however, its potential
> sacrifice seems more substantial. As explained in Part A, the answer
> depends. IGOs generally enjoy immunity under international law, but
> different jurisdictions apply the law differently, and even within the same
> jurisdiction different IGOs may be treated differently. Part B then
> introduces the complication that any such immunity may be waived through
> the Mutual Jurisdiction provision, and affording such waiver is not the
> same thing as violating an IGO’s immunity. Part C then discusses
> alternative ways to resolve the situation. … “*
>
> Green Initiating proceedings waives immunity including counterclaims
> Blue Scenario (a) below
> Red Transfers those rights of scenario (a) to scenario (b)
>
> The rest of the memo is then based on the incorrect assumption that rights
> can be transferred between the two scenarios.
>
>
> *Proof*
>
> Absent UDRP there are two possible ways the immunity question could come
> before a court:
>
> (a) A TM owner seeks to acquire a domain which an IGO has registered
> (b) An IGO seeks to acquire a domain which a domain registrant has
> registered
>
> In (a) the IGO would be entitled to raise an immunity defence
> In (b) the IGO would be required to waive immunity for the court to
> consider the matter.
>
> As the UDRP is an administrative procedure to help take less complex cases
> out of the judicial system if UDRP is to afford the same protections as any
> other forum then UDRP needs to take into account both cases.
>
> (a) A TM owner seeks to acquire a domain which an IGO has registered by
> bringing a UDRP
> (b) An IGO seeks to acquire a domain which a domain registrant has
> registered by bringing a UDRP
>
>
>
> *Conclusion *
> The working group has not considered (a) which hides the fact that in (b)
> an IGO is never entitled to jurisdictional immunity after choosing to
> initiate proceedings. The incorrect Swaine reasoning introduces irrelevant
> complexity which confuses rather than clarifies and should therefore have
> no place in the working group’s final report.
>
>
> [for those without colours here is an earlier link to a formatted .pdf
> version of the above reasoning
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/
> 20180514/44788589/VeryseriousissueswithTheSwaineMemothepropo
> sedFinalReport-0001.pdf ]
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:51 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear Paul and everyone,
>>
>>
>>
>> Staff is taking the liberty here of addressing your specific question
>> about Professor Swaine’s memo, including your concern that it may have
>> analyzed a situation where it is not the IGO that commences proceedings but
>> rather is the subject of proceedings against it by a trademark owner. We
>> hope the following extracts from the memo will be useful in clarifying the
>> basis on which Professor Swaine gave his opinion.
>>
>>
>>
>> - In his memo, Professor Swaine notes that he *“focuses on the most
>> likely scenario: that in which an IGO, possessing rights in a name,
>> abbreviation, emblem or the like arising under the Paris Convention … has
>> complained and prevailed before an administrative panel in Uniform Domain
>> Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Policy” or “UDRP”) proceedings against a
>> domain-name registrant—resulting in an order of cancellation or transfer to
>> which the losing registrant objects by commencing a judicial action … “*
>> (see Page 77 of the Working Group’s Initial Report, at Annex G).
>>
>>
>>
>> - He notes that *“how matters unfold from that point [following the
>> registrant’s filing suit] will depend on national law”* (Page 81,
>> Annex G) as to the question, “*whether—in light of an IGO’s assent to
>> Mutual Jurisdiction—its immunity remains. Here, the more likely answer is
>> that it would not … The grant of Mutual Jurisdiction would likely establish
>> such a waiver, as it would for a state entity otherwise entitled to foreign
>> sovereign immunity. This waiver would be construed narrowly, but it would
>> likely permit proceeding against an IGO in at least some domestic courts.
>> The overall answer, then, is contingent. If there were no Mutual
>> Jurisdiction clause, an IGO might be entitled to immunity from judicial
>> process; in the status quo, however, it likely would not. Equitable
>> considerations might influence any judicial analysis” *(Page 78,
>> Annex G).
>>
>>
>>
>> - Concluding that “*In short, the Mutual Jurisdiction clause means
>> that participating IGOs will have agreed to the possibility of a judicial
>> process, notwithstanding any immunity to which they otherwise would be
>> entitled. This will loom largest in cases in which the IGO is the
>> complainant and benefited from an initial panel decision in its favor, such
>> that the decision to resort to judicial proceedings against the IGO—and the
>> risks that creates for adverse results—is made by the private party”*
>> (Page 82, Annex G), Professor Swaine focuses the remainder of his memo on
>> this scenario.
>>
>>
>>
>> - As part of his analysis, Professor Swaine also proposed a number of
>> alternative policy proposals for the Working Group’s consideration,
>> including possibly amending the Mutual Jurisdiction clause or arbitration.
>> These were noted and discussed on several Working Group calls in late 2016,
>> prior to the issuance of the Initial Report in January 2017.
>>
>>
>>
>> While the above summary cannot reflect the entirety or depth of Professor
>> Swaine’s advice, staff thought it might be helpful to recall these points
>> given the question raised by Paul. The full memo was attached to the
>> Initial Report as Annex G: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/d
>> efault/files/file/field-file-attach/igo-ingo-crp-access-init
>> ial-19jan17-en.pdf.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks and cheers
>>
>> Mary & Steve
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org> on
>> behalf of Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup at gmail.com>
>> *Date: *Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 10:49
>> *To: *"Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin at verisign.com>
>> *Cc: *"haforrestesq at gmail.com" <haforrestesq at gmail.com>,
>> "Donna.Austin at team.neustar" <Donna.Austin at team.neustar>, "
>> gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>, "
>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison Summary Report
>> (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group)
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Philip,
>>
>> In your reply to George Kirikos you stated:
>>
>> “If it is judicial proceedings them [sic] of course an IGO's initiation
>> of process indicates an implicit waiver of judicial immunity.”
>>
>> Thank you that is helpful.
>>
>> When I asked last year that the working group consider cases where an IGO
>> could be entitled to immunity (i.e. when a TM holder seeks to secure a
>> domain name owned by an IGO) I was told by those leading the working group
>> that this scenario was not within the working group’s charter.
>>
>> Swaine is an analysis of cases where an IGO is entitled to jurisdictional
>> immunity in judicial forums. Given you have just stated:
>>
>> “If it is judicial proceedings them [sic] of course an IGO's initiation
>> of process indicates an implicit waiver of judicial immunity.”
>>
>> I fail to see how you can ever reconcile Swaine with ever being relevant
>> to the working group’s final report. I don’t doubt it was expensive and
>> interesting but if you want it to remain in the final report please can you
>> reply showing how it could be in any way considered relevant?
>>
>> Yours sincerely,
>>
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Paul:
>>
>>
>>
>> Responding in an individual capacity -- Professor Swaine’s memo is an
>> excellent explanation of the accepted scope of IGO judicial immunity and
>> the varied analytical approaches that national courts take in determining
>> the validity of IGO immunity defenses. I remain proud that we solicited
>> this expert input on the central legal issue before the WG, and
>> appreciative that ICANN funded the research.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am sure it will be of substantial assistance to whatever decisional
>> body determines how best to resolve the inherent conflict between statutory
>> rights of domain registrants and the desire of IGOs to have a means of
>> addressing cybersquatting that does not require full surrender of valid
>> claims to judicial immunity as a condition of bringing an action.
>>
>>
>>
>> Philip
>>
>>
>>
>> Philip S. Corwin
>>
>> Policy Counsel
>>
>> VeriSign, Inc.
>>
>> 12061 Bluemont Way[maps.google.com]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D12061-2BBluemont-2BWay-2B-250D-250AReston-2C-2BVA-2B20190-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=fHE_Cr9toYeLCsl-trxHT_K7CdrHZ4uAVUnv57xOoj8&s=CoaOz-PewsfP8inMwD1N5msXqqp7rInZbzZOhQAWtCc&e=>
>> Reston, VA 20190
>>
>> 703-948-4648/Direct
>>
>> 571-342-7489/Cell
>>
>>
>>
>> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Paul Tattersfield [mailto:gpmgroup at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 19, 2018 7:32 PM
>> *To:* Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com>
>> *Cc:* icann at leap.com; Donna.Austin at team.neustar; haforrestesq at gmail.com;
>> gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org; rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>
>>
>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison
>> Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process
>> Working Group)
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Philip,
>>
>> OK lets settle this once and for all:
>>
>> Show me examples of where an IGO is entitled to immunity after initiating
>> proceedings. In either the initial proceedings or any follow-on proceedings?
>>
>>
>>
>> Any jurisdiction will do, any matter will do......
>>
>> If you can not then Swaine is irrelevant to what the working group is
>> considering.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yours sincerely,
>>
>> Paul.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Paul:
>>
>>
>>
>> For the record, and in regard to this –
>>
>> The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to
>> discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue
>> level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for
>> months and months on end.
>>
>>
>>
>> The discussion within the WG was not blocked by the co-chairs. It was
>> blocked because George filed a section 3.7 Appeal at the point in time when
>> the co-chairs wished to initiate the consensus call process. The co-chairs
>> later offered to rescind holding an anonymous poll of the full WG but
>> George rejected that approach and continued his appeal. So far as I am
>> aware you supported George in these actions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Other than speaking with Susan in their individual capacity as WG members
>> the co-chairs had no control over the content of her report.
>>
>>
>>
>> Speaking only for myself, I do not agree with your characterization of
>> the Swaine memo and believe it was highly relevant to the central issue
>> before the WG.
>>
>>
>>
>> Philip
>>
>>
>>
>> Philip S. Corwin
>>
>> Policy Counsel
>>
>> VeriSign, Inc.
>>
>> 12061 Bluemont Way[maps.google.com]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D12061-2BBluemont-2BWay-2B-250D-250AReston-2C-2BVA-2B20190-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=fHE_Cr9toYeLCsl-trxHT_K7CdrHZ4uAVUnv57xOoj8&s=CoaOz-PewsfP8inMwD1N5msXqqp7rInZbzZOhQAWtCc&e=>
>> Reston, VA 20190
>>
>> 703-948-4648/Direct
>>
>> 571-342-7489/Cell
>>
>>
>>
>> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] *On
>> Behalf Of *Paul Tattersfield
>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 19, 2018 5:01 AM
>> *To:* George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>
>> *Cc:* Donna.Austin at team.neustar; Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>;
>> gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org; rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] GNSO Council Liaison
>> Summary Report (Re: IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process
>> Working Group)
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear ICANN,
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with George, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the call
>> later today as I have another meeting half way across the country which
>> clashes with your call. I will listen to the call afterwards and submit any
>> comments to the email list, sorry for any inconvenience. Please accept my
>> apologies
>>
>> Briefly, I would also like to point out:
>>
>> The IGO's have accepted the principle of coexistence and as they are
>> initiating the proceedings they have no immunity rights whatsoever in
>> either the initial action or any follow on proceedings. This is an
>> incredibly simple legal principle and I can not find ANY jurisdiction in
>> the world on ANY matter not just domain names where an IGO would be
>> entitled to do so.
>>
>> The matter is only confused because the Swaine reasoning looked at the
>> case where others are initiating an action against the IGOs i.e. a
>> trademark owner looking to seize an IGO's asset. Clearly the expert report
>> is not relevant to the case the working group is considering where the
>> IGO's are initiating proceedings.
>>
>> The co-chairs will not refute this reasoning but are not prepared to
>> discuss it - this I find very troubling, not just on this single issue
>> level but the fact that working group officers can block its discussion for
>> months and months on end. I also note with some dismay that only 2 people
>> in the private office sessions said they were not prepared to accept any
>> other option than option 3 - the 2 co-chairs preferred option.
>>
>> We have an opportunity in this working group to set an example to the RPM
>> working group using any IGO cases to show how UDRP can be easily improved
>> for all parties in a way that does not tilt the balance in either side's
>> favour but just improves process and reduces costs for all parties and
>> meets the GAC's advice.
>>
>>
>>
>> It really is incredibly easy - Free private mediation and a separate
>> (voluntary for registrants) arbitration track. If you want more registrants
>> to CHOOSE arbitration simply make it cheaper, faster and less risky (name
>> only) than the judicial route. This could be sorted in a handful of
>> meetings and no interest group has lost anything!
>>
>>
>>
>> Yours sincerely,
>>
>> Paul.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:38 AM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> With regards to the Summary Report which is to be discussed tomorrow,
>> there are several parts of it that I disagree with, which I'll discuss
>> orally tomorrow during our call. However, some parts deserve a written
>> response, given that they contain supporting links (and the WebEx
>> interface really sucks, compared to Adobe Connect) so it's best to
>> post them in advance of the call.
>>
>> 1. On page 2, it's asserted that "the number of active participants is
>> extremely low" (it's also repeated on page 3, i.e. "small number of
>> participants' views"). However, that's not consistent with the facts.
>> For example, the IRTP-D PDP, the most recently completed GNSO PDP
>> according to:
>>
>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive[gnso.icann.org]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_inactive&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=fHE_Cr9toYeLCsl-trxHT_K7CdrHZ4uAVUnv57xOoj8&s=2Pum4Md0vfHMKn5AUBAH3Z-j6dHKCuF_ZhREl6ZbzXU&e=>
>>
>> has its attendance logs at:
>>
>> https://community.icann.org/display/ITPIPDWG/Attendance+Log[
>> community.icann.org]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_ITPIPDWG_Attendance-2BLog&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=fHE_Cr9toYeLCsl-trxHT_K7CdrHZ4uAVUnv57xOoj8&s=SM46RS2yu2NqlCCV6jC_TqeffNSm5NO7Hrg2Z_zxdzw&e=>
>>
>> If one adds up the "total attended" column, and divide it by the total
>> number of meetings, one obtains the average attendance per meeting:
>>
>> Sum of total attended column = 553
>> Total meetings = 56
>> Average = 9.88 per meeting
>>
>> It is of note that both the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board adopted
>> their recommendations:
>>
>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/irtp-d[gnso.icann.org]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_active_irtp-2Dd&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=fHE_Cr9toYeLCsl-trxHT_K7CdrHZ4uAVUnv57xOoj8&s=j2Zvmixa4aRhzYenT-dnA022yco2l1JnPBILd7c6P2A&e=>
>>
>> Now, let's compare this to the IGO PDP and its attendance records:
>>
>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Attendance+
>> Records[community.icann.org]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_gnsoicrpmpdp_Attendance-2BRecords&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=fHE_Cr9toYeLCsl-trxHT_K7CdrHZ4uAVUnv57xOoj8&s=mwySLJqja9rtF5SFHTy4NbNmZuRg0TzTEP7xPbL3BMk&e=>
>>
>> Sum of total attended column = 711
>> Total meetings = 71
>> Average = 10.01 per meeting
>>
>> So, there has actually been HIGHER average attendance (10.01 vs 9.88
>> per meeting) in this IGO PDP, compared to the IRTP-D whose work was
>> successfully completed.
>>
>> 2. On page 3, it's claimed that adoption of Option 4 "will require a
>> Charter amendment" for that other PDP." I'm not convinced that that's
>> a requirement. The RPM PDP charter is at:
>>
>> https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/WG+Charter?
>> preview=3D/5872=
>> 9944/58730036/Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final.pdf[community.icann.org]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_RARPMRIAGPWG_WG-2BCharter-3Fpreview-3D3D_5872-3D9944_58730036_Charter-2520for-2520RPM-2520PDP-5Ffinal.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=fHE_Cr9toYeLCsl-trxHT_K7CdrHZ4uAVUnv57xOoj8&s=ps70jf_1KqUAI3uRTbpQJ4U149wbZN0CHdG6lKySm40&e=>
>>
>> and states on page 3 of the charter that:
>>
>> "(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts
>> In the course of its work, the Working Group should monitor the
>> progress of and, where appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN
>> groups that are working on topics that may overlap with or
>> ***otherwise provide useful input to this PDP.***
>> ....
>> In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into
>> consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT
>> Review, and ***any other relevant GNSO policy development***"
>>
>> (emphasis added)
>>
>> So, I think this situation was already covered by the RPM PDP's
>> current charter, and doesn't need an amendment.
>>
>> As I mentioned earlier, there are other parts of the Summary Report I
>> have concerns about, but I'll save them for tomorrow's call, as they
>> don't require any links/quotes.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> George Kirikos
>> 416-588-0269
>> http://www.leap.com/[leap.com]
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=fHE_Cr9toYeLCsl-trxHT_K7CdrHZ4uAVUnv57xOoj8&s=V1eNh6UuyYEnssdELGy5BGrOMHYiXX7md_UYRrQBKek&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
>> > Dear all,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On behalf of Susan Kawaguchi, GNSO Council liaison to this PDP Working
>> > Group, please find attached the summary report that Susan mentions in
>> her 10
>> > April email (below). You should already have received the calendar
>> > invitation and call details for the next Working Group call, currently
>> > scheduled for next Thursday 19 April at our usual time of 1600 UTC.
>> Susan
>> > will be on the call to discuss the report and proposed next steps with
>> > everyone.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks and cheers
>> >
>> > Mary & Steve
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy at gmail.com>
>> > Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:26
>> > To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
>> > Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com>, Mary Wong
>> > <mary.wong at icann.org>, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>
>> > Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process
>> Working
>> > Group
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group
>> > members,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I write to update you, in my role as GNSO Council Liaison to this
>> Working
>> > Group, on the status of the WG member consultation process that was set
>> out
>> > in my email of 9 March 2018 and then actioned during ICANN61 and
>> following.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > As envisaged in my email of 9 March, staff and I are preparing a report
>> for
>> > the Working Group on the input received at and since ICANN61, with
>> > recommendations on next steps from me and Heather Forrest, the GNSO
>> Chair.
>> > We anticipate posting the report to the WG list at the end of this
>> week, for
>> > discussion at a WG meeting to be held at the group's usual time next
>> > Thursday, 19 April. At that meeting, I will be happy to present a
>> summary of
>> > the report and its recommendations, and answer questions from WG
>> members.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > An email from staff with call details will be circulated shortly. Bear
>> in
>> > mind that we do not have Adobe Connect, so alternate arrangements will
>> be
>> > made to support our call.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > In the meantime, I sincerely thank you for taking the time to provide me
>> > with your feedback, which contributes to the substantial work of the
>> group
>> > on this challenging policy area.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Kind regards,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Susan Kawaguchi
>> >
>> > Councilor for the Business Constituency
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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/20180615/42752ab3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Swaine Errors.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 14764 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180615/42752ab3/SwaineErrors-0001.pdf>
More information about the Gnso-igo-ingo-crp
mailing list