[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE READ: IGO-INGO Curative Rights session at ICANN61

[Mary Wong]

Dear Working Group members,

Following on Susan’s email (below), please note that the ICANN61 session for our Working Group – scheduled for Wednesday 14 March from 1700-1830 Puerto Rico time – will be repurposed as office hours, for any Working Group member (either present on site in San Juan or remotely) to meet with Susan, to discuss your views on the IGO jurisdictional immunity issue (including the six options currently under consideration).

To facilitate the office hours, and if you are interested in meeting with Susan, please be so kind as to fill out this Doodle poll to indicate which 10-minute slot you prefer: https://doodle.com/poll/ikwa9hp8cd7sar4h. If you will not be physically here but nevertheless wish to meet with Susan, please email me or Steve privately to provide us with a phone number that Susan can reach you at, for your preferred 10-minute slot.

As Susan has noted, additional office hours can be scheduled after ICANN61 to accommodate those Working Group members who are not available during the Wednesday time frame.

Thank you.

Cheers
Mary & Steve

From: Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy at gmail.com>
Date: Friday, March 9, 2018 at 14:37
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>, "gnso-chairs at icann.org" <gnso-chairs at icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP WG

Dear IGO-INGO Curative Rights Policy Development Process Working Group members,

I write as the GNSO Council Liaison to this Working Group, to circulate a recommendation from Dr. Heather Forrest, GNSO Chair, which I endorse and support. She and I both hope that the proposed approach can be a useful path forward in assisting the group to ascertain and develop consensus (if any) on the six options under consideration relating to the handling of IGO jurisdictional immunity issues where a registrant who has lost a UDRP or URS proceeding against an IGO proceeds to file a court claim against that IGO.

You will find details of the recommended approach in the attached Straw Man Paper (prepared by ICANN staff at Heather’s request) and accompanying Annex. I will be very grateful if everyone can take a moment to provide feedback as to whether you support the suggested approach or not, since this will allow us all to see if the approach may be workable.

As the Working Group has a session coming up next week at ICANN61 (on Wednesday 14 March from 1700-1830 Puerto Rico time), the recommended approach also includes a suggestion for how to organize that session. In brief, the recommendation is:


•       Instead of a regular Working Group meeting or open community session, as has been the Working Group’s practice in recent ICANN meetings, the ICANN61 session will be run as a form of “open office hours”, where any and all Working Group members are invited to discuss their views and questions on the topic of IGO jurisdictional immunity with me, including (and especially) the six options.

•       ICANN policy staff will be on hand, to provide background information and process advice, and to assist me with taking accurate notes of the session.

•       The session will not be recorded, to encourage frank sharing of views (note: this is the model that was adopted for a different group relatively recently to try to break an impasse in that group).

•       Since not everyone will be able to attend the ICANN61 open office hours and, more importantly, because some Working Group members may prefer to provide their views in private, I will (with ICANN staff assistance) hold additional 1:1 or small group conversations (as you may prefer) after ICANN61 – this will most likely be done through Adobe Connect and/or a conference phone bridge.

•       Following these office hour sessions, I will (with ICANN staff assistance) prepare a report for the Working Group on the discussions that took place. That report should form the basis for an initial designation of consensus levels for each of the six options by Phil and Petter.

•       While a non-anonymous poll may be useful at some later stage in this iterative process of finding consensus (consistent with the requirements in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines), it is not necessary at this present time.

Thank you – and on behalf of Heather, thank you also for taking the time to provide me with any and all feedback you may have in light of the procedural path forward noted in this message.

Susan Kawaguchi
Councilor for the Business Constituency


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180313/17535fa0/attachment.html>