[gnso-igo-wt] Agenda RPM - IGO Curative Rights Work Track for 19 April 2021 15:00 UTC Meeting

Tue Apr 20 10:08:38 UTC 2021

Dear Chris,

Please find below text message received from Manal , GAC Chair regarding
IGO GAC List
3:54 AM (8 hours ago)
to *GAC*, Manal, Giacomo, me

Dear Kavouss, Giacomo and all ..

Apologies for the delayed reply ..

Regarding the GAC IGO list, kindly note that the list is not 8 years old ..
ICANN Org has helped in reaching out to the all IGOs on the list to confirm
their data and ensure updated contact information .. This was as recent as
2019 .. What we are still missing is an ongoing mechanism to add to the
list or remove from it .. SO this is something we need to consider and
agree upon ..

Dear Kavouss ..

Appreciate your kind confirmation to keep the GAC updated on the
concerns/questions currently under discussion and highlighted below .. I’m
sure the GAC would also benefit from guidance by IGO Work Track GAC
representatives/alternates in that respect ..

Kind Regards

--Manal

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 3:58 PM Chris Disspain via gnso-igo-wt <
gnso-igo-wt at icann.org> wrote:

> Thanks Paul and hello everyone.
>
> I want to address a couple of points as we move towards our call in an
> hour or so.
>
> As we concluded the call last week, the group seemed to be leaning towards
> pursuing the work of limited amendments to a UDRP template that would be
> for the specific use of IGOs and, assuming agreement could be reached, then
> going to the Council to say ’this is what we’ve done and how we recommend
> solving the recommendation 5 problem’.
>
> The limited areas for amendment were a) ’standing' (using 6ter or using
> the GAC list), b) removing the requirement to agree to a local
> jurisdiction, c) whether the registrant could bring proceedings in their
> local jurisdiction if they lose the UDRP and d) a ‘final’ hearing either by
> arbitration or a super panel.
>
> However, in his note below Paul expresses a concern about the ’scope
> creep’ and suggests that maybe we should seek the Council blessing at this
> stage.
>
> If we ask the Council now then, well, we will have asked and we may get a
> positive or a negative response.
>
> If we don’t ask now, we can always ask later if we reach a point of
> discomfort with the level of tweaking and believe it to be unjustifiable.
>
> So, the question for this group is whether we believe that working on a
> parallel process based on tweaking the limited areas for amendment already
> discussed can be said to be in the spirit of the PDP recommendations
> already accepted by the GNSO or whether we believe that the suggested path
> strays outside the spirit and we should therefore seek consent from the
> Council?
>
> It may help us to decide the above if we could get an indication from the
> IGO and other GAC representatives on the call whether the concept of taking
> the existing UDRP and tweaking the limited areas for amendment will satisfy
> them. Brian indicated that such an approach may well work but towards the
> end of the call there was talk of bringing in other elements for amendment
> which I believe some in the WT (who had been prepared to consider
> proceeding with the discussion on the limited areas) thought was a step too
> far.
>
> So, on the call I’d like us to address these points and see if we can
> agree the next steps. There is no point in continuing the discussion of
> ‘red lining’ the current UDRP if the feeling is that we should seek Council
> consent. Equally, there is no point in continuing if the limited areas for
> amendment are insufficient to bring the IGOs into the system.
>
> Finally, I acknowledge the note from David Satola and, David, welcome your
> intervention.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris Disspain
> chris at disspain.uk
>
> +44 7880 642456
>
>
> On 16 Apr 2021, at 12:12, McGrady, Paul D. via gnso-igo-wt <
> gnso-igo-wt at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks Chris and Jeff.  I feel a little bit like we are picking out
> curtains for a house that our real estate agent hasn’t convinced us to buy
> yet.  J  So, for now, I think I can safely thank Jeff for the work while
> at the same time noting that at least the IPC is not at all sure if a new
> policy is a good idea. We are still discussing internally (substantive
> concerns) and I personally am not at all sure that we should be creeping
> this far off charter scope without at least an informal blessing from the
> Council, or at absolute minimum, Council Leadership, (procedural
> concerns).  I am actively seeking input from the IPC, so I won’t be on this
> fence forever, I promise.
>
> Best,
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged,
> attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended
> recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you
> received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply
> e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
> *From:* gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Chris
> Disspain via gnso-igo-wt
> *Sent:* Friday, April 16, 2021 1:25 AM
> *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com>; gnso-igo-wt at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-igo-wt] Agenda RPM - IGO Curative Rights Work Track
> for 19 April 2021 15:00 UTC Meeting
>
> [EXTERNAL MESSAGE]
> All,
>
>
> Just a note to endorse Jeff’s caveats and disclaimers below and thank him
> for picking up the pen on all our behalf’s.
> Cheers,
>
> CD
>
>
> On 15 Apr 2021, at 21:34, Jeff Neuman via gnso-igo-wt <
> gnso-igo-wt at icann.org> wrote:
>
> 
> All,
>
> You will see that I am the one that took a stab at the “redlines” of the
> IGO DRP.  I did this to give people something to look at.  A couple of
> disclaimers:
>
>
>    1. No one has endorsed these, I just wanted to help the group make
>    progress.
>    2. It is for discussion purposes only
>    3. The language is far from perfect and I am sure can use work.
>    4. I use the term “Arbitration” to refer to process that could occur
>    if an IGO wins and the Registrant wants to have a rehearing.  But that
>    could just as easily be the Super Panel that has been discussed.  Don’t
>    focus on what it is called for now, but just know it is a reference to the
>    “to be created rehearing process.”
>    5. As Brian pointed out on the last call, some of the criteria had to
>    be slightly tweaked because they applied to trademark owners and this
>    applies to the operators/administrators of IGOs.  We wanted to make it
>    clear that we were NOT calling them “rights owners”.
>    6. I hope this helps move the discussion along.  If not, then at least
>    nothing was lost.
>
> Thanks all!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Jeff
>
> <image001.png>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Founder & CEO
> JJN Solutions, LLC
> p: +1.202.549.5079
> E: jeff at jjnsolutions.com
> http://jjnsolutions.com
>
>
> *From:* gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *policy---
> via gnso-igo-wt
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 15, 2021 4:17 PM
> *To:* gnso-igo-wt at icann.org
> *Subject:* [gnso-igo-wt] Agenda RPM - IGO Curative Rights Work Track for
> 19 April 2021 15:00 UTC Meeting
>
> Dear WT,
>
> Please find below the proposed agenda for next Monday. In particular, the
> WT is to review the links to two proposed redlines of the UDRP Rules and
> Policy documents to further the WT’s deliberations.
>
>
> *IGO-CRWT - Meeting #08*
> *Proposed Agenda*
> Monday 19 April 2021 at 15.00 UTC
>
>
> 1.          Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes)
>
> 2.          Welcome & Chair updates (Chair) (10 minutes)
>
> a.     FYI: Work plan & status update to GNSO Council: 22 Apr 2021
>
> 3.          Four Components of Deliberations (75 minutes)
> a.     Standing - 6ter vs. GAC List // Agreeing to local jurisdiction
> b.     Court Proceeding // Arbitration
> c.     What might amendments to the UDRP (or IGODRP) look like? To
> support this discussion, consider *very* preliminary redlines:
> ·       The UDRP -
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uHi31ChcJxZ-n0e7zJrW8q251er3VESTEYa92RlgiZc/edit
> ·       The UDRP Rules-
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M3rXhS272tqBW1cIWY5tN-FMHsE5PBkY4CeR-hBMWKs/edit
>
> 4.          Next steps & closing (5 minutes)
>
> a.     Next meeting 26 April 2021 @ 15:00 UTC
>
> Thank you,
>
> Mary, Steve, and Berry
>
> *Berry Cobb*
> *GNSO Policy Consultant*
> Principal | BAC in Black Consulting <http://bacinblack.com/>
> *Mob: *+1 (720) 839-5735
> <https://twitter.com/berrycobb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/berrycobb/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-igo-wt mailing list
> gnso-igo-wt at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-wt
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-igo-wt mailing list
> gnso-igo-wt at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-wt
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-igo-wt mailing list
> gnso-igo-wt at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-wt
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-wt/attachments/20210420/67225911/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PastedGraphic-2.tiff
Type: image/tiff
Size: 12586 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-wt/attachments/20210420/67225911/PastedGraphic-2-0001.tiff>