Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en

**Members: reminder, when using chat, please select all panelists and attendees in order for everyone to see chat. Alternates are not allowed to engage in the chat (apart from private chats) or use any of the other zoom room functionalities such as raising hands or agreeing / disagreeing.

On it

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BxGr2f1d5670Zgcr42a7grU-moa254la-_NdqA0EsN4/edit

@Brian, please repost to chat with All Panelist and Attendees

[reposting to all] the idea originally (mindful that conversations evolve) was that the first part just shown was for a rapid 24-48 hour mechanism (i.e., the idea of a separate rapid mechanism was never taken up), vs the UDRP we have been primarily discussing

yes

As long as the decision is final, either work

I like "Supreme Panel". Catchy

yes, understood, thx

instead of !

@Paul, what if both parties agree to the “appeal” to the Supreme Panel (i.e. voluntary consent)?

The same question will also arise if arbitration is being considered.

@Mary -RE: the Supreme route, it may be possible to get there, but we have to think through it a bunch. RE: Arbitration, each jurisdiction has its own law on how it treats binding arbitration. All of this is easier if we presuppose US only jurisdiction, but I don't think that is necessarily the case in all UDRP matters.

@Alexandra, if it’s within the current framework (i.e. how the UDRP works), the registrant’s contract is with their registrar (not ICANN) so those terms will have to be incorporated (like the UDRP).

@All, the current UDRP says anyone can go to the courts any time they want during the UDRP proceeding. We would have the change that language to exclude Supreme Panel/Arbitration

Right Paul, the current court language is about tolling the decision implementation (not a bar to action)

This Work Track can decide to recommend that the registration agreement be amended to include the possibility of consent (to either a Supreme Panel or to arbitration) by a registrant if an IGO files a UDRP/URS proceeding against it - in which case the Work Track will have to think through Paul’s scenarios/question (as he noted).

Jay youre breaking up

(no his line is broken)

@Jay, we missed probably the last minute of your statement in your last response back to Chris.

The IGO Small Group Proposal language: the domain name has been “registered and used where the IGO is pretending to be the registrant or that was otherwise likely to result in fraud or deception”.

Sorry, REGISTRANT is pretending to be the IGO!!!

Creating a 6Ter (non-trademark) based separate dispute mechanism seems pretty far off the ranch

"otherwise likely to result in fraud or deception" is an Interstate freeway, not a footpath.

@Paul, yes, presumably the final scope/text will need to be more precise (assuming the Work Track agrees this is a path worth pursuing).

agree Paul but that is a later discussion IF we can agree to move down the path

+1 Susan. I think 6ter is a red herring.

The GAC list was submitted to ICANN in 2013 and based on (1) IGOs that are created by treaty; and (2) IGOs having international legal personality (i.e. not 6ter).

**Members: reminder, when using chat, please select all panelists and attendees in order for everyone to see chat.

The .INT was also used if I recall. https://www.iana.org/domains/int/policy

How would that list be updated and who would be the keeper of that list?

@Susan - Wouldn't the US scrutinize that list just as much as the 6ter requests?

The GAC had originally (2011-2012?) thought of just using .int but in submitting its final list the GAC specified the criteria I noted.

ha!

The GAC criteria for the 2013 list in full: “(a) an international organization established by a treaty and which possesses international legal personality; or (b) an “Intergovernmental organization” having received a standing invitation to participate as observer in the sessions and the work of the United Nations General Assembly; or (c) a distinct entity, organ or program of the United Nations.”

For the protection of full names there is a procedure as part of the policy. See. 4.4: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/igo-ingo-protection-policy-2020-02-18-en

4.4. Red Cross, IOC and IGO Identifier List Changes: Names may be added to or deleted from the Red Cross, IOC and IGO Identifier List upon ten (10) calendar days' notice from ICANN to Registry Operator. ICANN will consult with the GAC and GNSO in relation to proposed changes to the names on the Red Cross, IOC, and IGO Identifier List on the Reserved Names for gTLDs.

The more we narrow the triggering language, the more freedom we will have with all of the other elements. What do people think about "where the registrant is pretending to be the IGO or pretending to be an agent of the IGO" and cut the rest of the language which is just too broad.

The GAC list is also supposed to be reviewed by the GAC either prior to a new gTLD round or every three years, whichever is earlier. The GAC has not reviewed the list (to the best of the staff’s knowledge).

In this case, I am not sure there is a sensitivity around the number of translations because it is not a per-emptive reservation, but a curative right

"impersonating" could be seen akin to "diverting traffic from"

Agreed (narrower)

I would rather not play with the scope/criteria

(a) they are on the list

(b) take out the waiver

(c) if IGO wins, and registrant cannot challenge in court, you go to Super Panel

The "List" needs some processed around generating it, updating it, etc.

I think this solution creates the least amount of waves.

I am not sure that the standard you are using is much narrower.

It is certainly different, but creative lawyers can argue that a lot fits into the standard that you mentioned. And then trademark owners may want that as well since you wouldn't have to show "registration AND use in BAD Faith"

you wouldn't have to show "registration" in bad faith

Without giving up on the 6Ter (non-trademark) concern, the Supreme Panel seems less radical than special igoDRP.

We spent years (as a community) getting to "bad faith registration".

@Jeff, presumably the “bad faith equivalent” under discussion is the fact that the registrant is attempting to pass itself off as the IGO (i.e. intent to deceive).

@Mary - That could substitute for 'use" in bad faith

But not necessarily "registration is bad faith"

"registration in bad faith"

Who feels like we just let 2 different genies out of their bottles at the same time?

I am the GNSO liaison to the GAC

So, I still look out for the GNSO :)

But convey what the GNSO is doing to the GAC ;)

Happy Passover this week :)

I'd prefer that we skip next week. I will be in transit that day (from the holiday the day before).

+1 Chris - yes, it will be difficult to get people's attention this week.

"Second Look Arbitration" Panel or SLAP

yes of course, homework noted

Hand raised

Staff has updated the Google Doc with the general agreements/discussion points from today.

Thanks Mary. Can you send that link again

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BxGr2f1d5670Zgcr42a7grU-moa254la-_NdqA0EsN4/edit?usp=sharing

Thanks Mary!

Next call: Monday, 12 April 2021 at 15:00 UTC (invite will be sent out shortly)

@Kavouss, yes we can do that (although we’ve currently captured the gist in three new bullet points on the Google Doc).

Thanks Chris! Great call today. Lots to ponder and take back to our various groups.

Thanks everyone