The next meeting of the new IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group- Wednesday 24 September 2014 at 16:00 UTC 09:00 PDT, 12:00 EDT, 17:00 London, 18:00 CET
For other times: http://tinyurl.com/magc68g
Adobe Connect WITH AUDIO enabled: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/crp/
Agenda:
- Roll Call/Updates to SOI
- Update on Sub-Groups for Work Plan Phase I (staff to update)
- NAF Presentation (Kristine Dorrain (NAF))
- Q&A/Discussion (WG chairs to lead/facilitate)
- Next steps
The meeting will be chaired by Petter Rindforth.
Documents for Review:
Work Plan Update - 22 Sept 2014
MP3 Recording: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-20140924-en.mp3
Meeting Transcript: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-igo-ingo-crp-access-24sep14-en.pdf
Attendees:
Imran Ahmed Shah – NCUC
George Kirikos - Individual
Jay Chapman – Individual
Jim Bikoff – IPC
Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP
Paul Tattersfield – Individual
Petter Rindforth – IPC
Val Sherman – IPC
Griffin Barnett – IPC
Reg Levy – RySG
Kristine Dorrain – Individual
David Heasley – IPC
David Maher – RySG
Mason Cole – RySG
Kathy Kleiman - NCUC
Phil Corwin – BC
Nat Cohen – BC
Gary Campbell - GAC
Apologies:
John McGrann – RrSG
Paul Keating - NCUC
ICANN staff:
Mary Wong
Steve Chan
Nathalie Peregrine
-------------------------------
Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 24 September 2014:
Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting on the 24th September 2014
George Kirikos:Hi everyone.
Paul Tattersfield:Hi, George, everyone
Imran Ahmed Shah:Hi Everyone,
George Kirikos:Hi Paul and Imran.
Reg - M+M:Good morning, all
Mason Cole:greetings all
George Kirikos:Hi Reg & Mason.
Reg - M+M:It appears, from the two UDRP proceedings we just read, that the IOC, at least, has no problem protecting its rights with the RPMs that are already in place for all rights holders.
George Kirikos:Indeed, Reg.
Jay Chapman:Happy Wednesday, everyone
George Kirikos:Hi Jay.
Kathy:Can we control the document?
Kathy:Tx Mary
Nathalie Peregrine:Osvaldo Novoa has joined the AC room
Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all, sorry I'm late
George Kirikos:Welcome Osvaldo.
Nathalie Peregrine:David Maher has joined the call
George Kirikos:Not everyone has joined a subgroup.
Imran Ahmed Shah:Yes, Sub Group C has only Mike,
Nathalie Peregrine:Phil is not on the audio bridge
George Kirikos:Group B hasn't "met" yet -- we were expecting last week that more volunteers would be coming forward.
Nathalie Peregrine:Phil Corwin has joined the AC room
George Kirikos:Welcome, Phil.
Philip Corwin:Apologies for joining late
George Kirikos:Right, Jay.....that's why some outreach is appropriate.
George Kirikos:(i.e. do a survey/mailing, based on a sample of IGOs)
George Kirikos:They're lumped together because of the prior WG
George Kirikos:(who didn't want to make any special rules for IGOs unless INGOs got them too....)
Kathy:Can Staff please share the differences between IGO and INGOs - because it seems to have been a topic you have given good thought to.
George Kirikos:[I disagree that they should be lumped together, by the way, since we shouldn't be creating 'new' law]
Mary Wong:@Kathy, IGOs have an issue with submitting to national jurisdiction (as required by the UDRP & URS).
Mary Wong:INGOs do not have that problem - but both groups may have problems in the TM area as they now need to be TM owners in order to use the UDRP or URS.
Kathy:@Mary, tx: to which treaties are the IGOs and INGOs, as different classes, tied?
Mary Wong:@Kathy, the IGOs have relied on Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.
Mary Wong:For INGOs, there is no specific treaty generally but for Red Cross there are the Geneva Conventions, for the IOC there is the Nairobi Treaty.
Mary Wong:The presentation document has been unsync'ed
Kathy:Great info, tx Mary!
Kathy:But the URS applies only to New gTLDs
George Kirikos:And to ccTLDs that opt in to it (e.g. .pw)
Mary Wong:@Kathy, yes
Kathy:And was largely intended to solve roll-out problems
Kathy:With many more defenses!
Mary Wong:Note, however, that one question for this WG is whether the URS should be a Consensus Policy like the UDRP
Kathy:It would be hard for us to overrule the consensus against that conclusion by the STI which created the URS
Gary Campbell:Hi Guys sorry to be late
George Kirikos:One can view all the cases at http://domains.adrforum.com/decision.aspx (change ruleset to "URS"). Easier to view with 50 decisions/page.
Gary Campbell:Thanks George
Nat Cohen:I believe that the USPS overreached early on by going after "postoffice.com"
Jay Chapman:Agree, Nat
Kathy:Good presentation, tx you!
Nat Cohen:yes, here is the postoffice.com UDRP:
Nat Cohen:http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/96313.htm
Nat Cohen:Though Carolyn Marks Johnson dissented and thought that the USPS should be able to seize postoffice.com
Nat Cohen:The other USPS loss was for post-office.com, again Carolyn Marks Johnson dissented
Nat Cohen:http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/decisions/96761.htm
Reg - M+M:Well that's good, for one.
Reg - M+M:(AmericanBar.org instead of aba.org—gets me everytime, too)
Nat Cohen:MLB.com used to be owned by a law firm
George Kirikos:PGA.com used to be owned by the Potato Growers of Alberta.
Paul Tattersfield: Excellent presentation, good looking slides too Kristine, thank you.
Jay Chapman:Thanks, Kristine - valuable presentation
Reg - M+M:My first thought is that I'm glad that the UDRP providers are loathe to rule against acronyms because they do indeed mean a very many things.
Reg - M+M:I'm sure, however, that this means that the IOC/RC/otherI/NGOs will complain that this means that their acronyms MUST be protected at the registry level, since they're not protected by UDRP
Reg - M+M:however, as was seen by the documentation passed around in advance of this call, I/NGOs *ARE* protected by the UDRP process
Reg - M+M:there is no evidence to suggest that the URS will be less friendly to them
Mary Wong:@Reg, those types of "preventative" protections (e.g. blocking, second-level withholding from registration) were dealt with by the original PDP WG. Most of their recs - except for IGO acronyms - have been accepted by the Board.
Mary Wong:On IGO acronyms, the current discussion is on the duration and scope of TMCH protection (ie there will be no blocking of second-level IGO acronyms)
Imran Ahmed Shah:I have a question regarding the fee charged for the Arbitration Function and the Arbitration Panel, what happend with the fee, when the issues were not resolved with in specific type and meetings?
Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Imran, I'm not quite sure I understand your question...these are administrative hearings that result in a written decision for one party or another. There is not really "issue resolution" that fails to happen...
Philip Corwin:Just re-raised hand--have a Q for Mary
George Kirikos:http://www.nominet.org.uk/disputes/resolving-domain-disputes/how-it-works
Imran Ahmed Shah:I am taking about the fee charged for the dispute resolution by ICANN regarding the new gTLDs Applications
Mary Wong:@Phil, do u want to type it here?
George Kirikos:(that shows how Formal Mediation is a part of the Nominet UK DRS)
Nat Cohen:Kristine - thanks for the presentation. Very helpful
Gary Campbell:Can someone explain to me the objectives of the 3 subgroups
George Kirikos:UDRP/URS are somewhat 'all or nothing', whereas court and/or mediation can be more creative as to the outcome.
Mary Wong:@Gary, primarily it is to "break down" the various research and early analysis tasks required by the WG Charter into manageable chunks that will facilitate informed discussion by the WG on what exactly (if anything) to do with the UDRP, URS or other process
Philip Corwin:If the URS is not a consensus policy it would not be covered by catch-all language in RAA. So is there a specific reference to the URS in the 2013 RAA, which all registrar selers of new gTLDs are required to accept?
Kathy:@Phil: URS is incorporated via the New gTLD Registry Agreements.
Gary Campbell:Thanks Mary
Philip Corwin:Understood, kathy. But what binds the registrant to accept the URS?
Reg - M+M:ICANN requires that registries requires that registrars abide by the URS
Kathy:It's part of the Base New gTLD Registry Agreement, and then passed to the Registrars (at least one way) through the New gTLD Registry-Registrar Agreement that follows.
George Kirikos:Thank you, Kristine.
Philip Corwin:So there is a specific refernce to the URS in the 2013 RAA?
Imran Ahmed Shah:HAve you replied to my question?
Mary Wong:@Phil, yes - let me look up the section
Kathy:And then in the Registrar-Registrant Agreement
Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Imran: I tried to, above....did you see that?
George Kirikos:Zak Muscovitch has studied the issue of panelist selection.
Mary Wong:@Phil, it's Section 3.8 of the RAA, referring specifically to the UDRP and URS for Registrars (coreresponding Registry obligation noted by Red and Kathy)
Philip Corwin:Thanks Mary.
Mary Wong:Here's the specific language: "During the Term of this Agreement, Registrar shall have in place a policy and procedures for resolution of disputes concerning Registered Names. Until ICANN adopts an alternative Consensus Policy or other Specification or Policy with respect to the resolution of disputes concerning Registered Names, Registrar shall comply with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP") identified on ICANN's website (www.icann.org/general/consensus-policies.htm), as may be modified from time to time. Registrar shall also comply with the Uniform Rapid Suspension ("URS") procedure or its replacement, as well as with any other applicable dispute resolution procedure as required by a Registry Operator for which Registrar is providing Registrar Services."
George Kirikos:Here's the Muscovitch study: http://www.dnattorney.com/NAFdomainnamedisputestudy2012.shtml
Imran Ahmed Shah:@Kristine , could not understand that either my question is clear, otherwise, I explained it in next lines,,,, and I also could not understand your reply....
Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Imran, we do not handle disputes over new gTLD applications?
Kristine Dorrain-NAF:<sorry, remove the question mark>
Mary Wong:@Imran, are you referring to the objection and dispute resolution procedures relating to new gTLD applications?
Mary Wong:If so, that is not within the scope of this WG.
Imran Ahmed Shah:es, including the dispute and conflict for which the mediation panels were setup
Imran Ahmed Shah:yes
George Kirikos:Bye everyone.
Jay Chapman:Thanks all, have a good day/week
Kristine Dorrain-NAF:Thanks, bye!
Paul Tattersfield:thanks bye
Imran Ahmed Shah:Thanks,
Gary Campbell:Bye all
