18 March 2015
- Mary Wong
- Aleksey Khapchenko
The next meeting of the new IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday 18 March 2015 2014 at 17:00 UTC. Please be aware that the clocks will have changed in some parts of the world, and in others not yet, so refer to the other times link below to ensure you join the meeting at the correct time. UTC time will be adjusted once all clock changes have taken place.
10:00 PDT, 13:00 EDT,17:00 London, 18:00 CET
For other times:http://tinyurl.com/pz65wkc
Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/crp/
Agenda:
- Roll call/updates to SOI
- Review input received from IPC and ISPCP, and determine follow up actions and/or responses if any
- Review remaining Charter questions, with a view toward recommending to the GNSO Council any items that the WG believes inappropriate or untimely to cover for purposes of developing its specific recommendations in this PDP
- Next steps/next meeting
MP3 Recording: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ingo-group-18mar15-en.mp3
Meeting Transcript: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-igo-ingo-crp-access-18mar15-en.pdf
Attendees:
George Kirikos - Individual
Petter Rindforth – IPC
Phil Corwin – BC
Val Sherman - IPC
Jay Chapman – Individual
Jim Bikoff – IPC
Kathy Kleiman - NCUC
Paul Keating - NCUC
Kristine Dorrain- Individual
Osvaldo Novoa - NCUC
Apologies:
David Maher - RySG
Mason Cole – RySG
ICANN staff:
Mary Wong
Steve Chan
Nathalie Peregrine
Adobe Connect chat transcript for Wednesday, 18 March 2015:
Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting on the 18th March 2015
Jay Chapman:Hello, everyone.
Petter Rindforth:Hello!
George Kirikos:Hi everyone.
Paul Keating:hello
George Kirikos:Taking a few minutes to get to a live person on the dial-in.
George Kirikos:Hi Paul.
Jay Chapman:Hi George
George Kirikos:Hey Jay.
Paul Keating:i will be onlyh in chat most lilely
George Kirikos:There is a number for Spain (looks free?) 800-300-053
George Kirikos:Code = IGO
Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all
George Kirikos:Hi Osvaldo.
Mary Wong:@George, @Paul, thanks so much for your emails on the sovereign immunity issue. The co-chairs have not had the chance to go through the suggestions in detail, but rest assured that the conversation will continue on the list and no note will be sent out until the WG has fully reviewed the documents, as amended.
Mary Wong:Everyone should have scrolling ability.
Mary Wong:Note on Question 3: the reference to "this problem" refers to the sovereign immunity issue (the WG had an explanatory paragraph on this in our letter that is omitted from this consolidated document).
Mary Wong:Similarly for Question 4: "this" means the cost issue.
Petter Rindforth:Well it seems that will be some money left over for this ,-)
Mary Wong:The discussion that Phil refers to at the GNSO Council level is for setting up a Cross Community Working Group to deliberate the issue of auction proceeds. As such, if one is established, it will likely be some time before any concrete recommendations are agreed on.
George Kirikos:The Nominet DRS fees can be a lot lower than UDRP, in the event of no response. See:http://www.nominet.org.uk/disputes/resolving-domain-disputes/how-it-works
George Kirikos:(just £200 + VAT for a summary decision)
Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Nominet is subsidized by the UK
Kristine Dorrain-NAF:And the community roundly rejected WIPO's proposal for a Summary Decision process I think...(dusting the cobwebs off my brain)
George Kirikos:If complaints do receive some subsidy from ICANN, it should also subsidize the cost of a 3-person panel (i.e. if Respondent asks for the larger panel).
Paul Keating:@ phil, Nominet is not funded by the UK governmentl
Paul Keating:I agree with Jim.
Paul Keating:@Phil, I think you are correct. It is not absoute. It is factyual specific. Hwo is the IGO using the asserted mark> If not related to their soverigne status then they should not argue about immunity.
Paul Keating:@ hil, please see my email.on the proposed letter.
Paul Keating:Thanks Jim good commments.
Nathalie Peregrine:Kathy Kleiman has joined
Paul Keating:Thanks Jim, good commments
Paul Keating:@George, the issue of Sov. Imm is their waiver of any Sov imm question upon submission of UDRP complaint.
Paul Keating:discovery, etc is an issue relevant to the local jurisdiction to whcih they have agreedbased on the MJ consent
Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Side comment, the cost of discovery and cross examination would add significantly to attorneys fees...
Paul Keating:sorry but that is not the only issue Phil. They can be liable for damages as shown in Parvi.org (130K) in damages). once they submit to jurisdiction they are subject to the rules of the local court and we cannot control those issues.
Paul Keating:that is my hand raise.
George Kirikos:Right, I don't actually want a new dispute policy....it's more of trying to get a sense of what aspects of the courts they're concerned about. Is it the damages aspect? (in which case the limited waiver solves things).
Paul Keating:@phil - please look at chat
George Kirikos:If they care about courts cross-examining them, or asking for discovery of documents, then that means they oppose having a really-in-depth and quality arbitration process.
Paul Keating:fine with me re revision.
Paul Keating:@mary, is the chat in these sessions included in the record>
Paul Keating:@mary, we should have access to this historical information
George Kirikos:The chats are archived to the mailing list.
George Kirikos:e.g. scroll down in http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2015-March/000300.htmlfor last week's chat.
Mary Wong:@Paul - yes, each public chat session is saved (as George has noted) and we publish them along with the recordings and transcript for each week on the WG wiki.
Paul Keating:@mary, thank you. can you possibly assemble those as a packages and sent them to us all or at least a link so that we have them avaiable when we view the letter>?
Mary Wong:@Paul, did you mean this specific chat or all the chats from all the WG calls?
George Kirikos:Amusingly, even Switzerland (home to many IGOs) has a jurisdiction clause for Zurich, for .ch domains, see https://www.nic.ch/reg/cm/wcm-page/disputes/rules_v1.jsp (rule 12(c)(ii))
Paul Keating:agreed rea INGOS
Paul Keating:agreed re already have standing but disagree that clarificadtnion is needed.
Paul Keating:we need more datea and more research.
Paul Keating:thanks Jim
George Kirikos:Yes, more data on the extent of the problem, as it's never really been provided by the IGOs.
Paul Keating:rea Paris Convention notation and no regisstration should be included in Clearning House. No. They shouldobtain registration.
George Kirikos:Good point, Phil. Adding Article 6ter marks (the 3000+ or so of them, minus the logos) wouldn't be too hard to add to teh TMCH.
George Kirikos:(although, a policy decision as to whether they *should* be added)
Paul Keating:@ Mary, but we still need to respond to the question.
George Kirikos:Some IGOs are very well funded, by the way, moreso than other complainants.
Mary Wong:@Paul, yes - I meant only that our WG should not be making recommendations on how to resolve that outstanding issue.
Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Petter is a panelist
Paul Keating:not that I recall.
George Kirikos:I think there was a concern about them providing input into the rules?
Paul Keating:Lets reach out to WIJPO.
George Kirikos:Isn't WIPO part of the IGOs small group?
Kristine Dorrain-NAF:I agree, I think we decided Panelist input would be a possible problem
Paul Keating:I think we should ask th e ADR providers.
Mary Wong:@George, yes it is, and also an Observer to this WG so it follows our mailing list discussions.
Mary Wong:Means eligibility, standing, identity verification, sov immunity
George Kirikos:Authentication criteria might refer to the validity of claimed marks, i.e. checking against the Article 6ter DB?
Mary Wong:@George, I think it was a general concept with something like TMCH authentication in mind
George Kirikos:Thanks, Mary.
Mary Wong:No worries!
Mary Wong:Note that the text in red was added by the Non Commercial SG prior to adoption by the Council.
George Kirikos:Theose last 3 points seem to be related to recommendations, i.e. if we decide a new policy/mechanism is needed, then those would be things to consider.
Mary Wong:The staff view was that if the WG was to recommend either amending or developiing a new DRP, that it would be careful to include balancing factors to act as safeguards.
George Kirikos:Is the Wiki accurate? I don't see the WIPO folks on the list as observers, hmm.https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsoicrpmpdp/pages/114492082/Members+Mailing+List+Archives
George Kirikos:(plus a bunch of people who've been pretty quiet)
Mary Wong:Good spot, George - thank you! We will update the wiki accordingly.
Kathy Kleiman:I think you summarized it well, Phil, tx you!
George Kirikos:Was it only the Business Constituency that didn't send us input?
George Kirikos:(or the registrars too?)
Mary Wong:@George, Registrars, BC, NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
George Kirikos:Oh, surprised that so many didn't respond.
Mary Wong:And the other SO/ACs - ccNSO, ASO, RSSAC, ALAC, GAC.
Mary Wong:Although the GAC did respond to say it will respond :)
George Kirikos:hehehe
George Kirikos:Better than complete silence, though. :-)
Kristine Dorrain-NAF:LOL
George Kirikos:Have a nice day/evening, everyone.
Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Thanks Phil
Osvaldo Novoa:By all
Jay Chapman:Thanks, Phil. Goodbye everyone.
Mary Wong:Thanks everybody!
Kathy Kleiman:By All, tx you!
Val Sherman:thanks all!