Logo

051040040 IGO Work Track Team Meeting - Shared screen with speaker view
Osvaldo Novoa
16:21
Hello all, sorry I’m late.
Terri Agnew
17:39
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 Panelists and Attendees in order for everyone to see chat.
Jay Chapman
21:42
I appreciate this proposal, and am curious what constitutes an “identifier”?
Paul McGrady
22:48
Sorry late. Cab drove me around the city
Paul McGrady
23:01
ha!
Brian BECKHAM
25:21
resending to all P/A: Jay I guess in terms of our discussions, it would be name or acronym, but we used "identifier" as that would cover both, and as that moreover stems from the understood concept of "source identification"
Paul McGrady
26:19
Will dial in
Berry Cobb
26:20
To also note, that the current consensus policy for protection of IGO and INGOs uses "identifiers": https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/igo-ingo-protection-policy-2020-02-18-en
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
27:15
See the UN org chart for examples of its organs and entities etc.: https://www.un.org/en/pdfs/un_system_chart.pdf
Jay Chapman
28:03
Does this definition also include INGOs?
Brian BECKHAM
28:15
(that is the second part (Chris' question), and "public activities" was primarily used in lieu of "use in commerce" and I believe also was used in the USPTO examination guide)
Berry Cobb
28:16
Negative.
Jay Chapman
28:21
Thx
Berry Cobb
28:22
hand
Paul McGrady
28:25
No
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
28:29
No
Brian BECKHAM
28:30
no
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
29:13
Examples of UN “programs: UNDP, UNEP. Examples of UN “entities”: UNHCR, UNITAR
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
29:31
@Jay, no - it has to be part of the UN system.
Berry Cobb
30:02
The prior WG understood through it's deliberations that INGOs do typically have trademark rights and already have access to UDRP/URS. Ex. IOC or Red Cross.
Brian BECKHAM
30:05
In any event, remember that bad faith still must be shown, we are only talking about "getting in the funnel"
Alexandra Excoffier (OECD)
30:15
It doesn't cover all IGO programmes, only UN
Jay Chapman
30:22
The UN system - I see
Paul McGrady
30:26
Agree. Expansion is a problem under all 3 options. But, meeting this definition is not a casual undertaking.
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
30:36
Yes, only “entities, organs or programs of the UN".
Alexandra Excoffier (OECD)
30:54
I wish it did ;-)
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
31:06
For the other two ways to qualify, it has to be the actual organization.
Jay Chapman
34:21
He was
Terri Agnew
38:29
@Paul, I see both zoom audio and telephone are open mic.
Terri Agnew
39:22
@Paul, I muted the zoom computer connection
Terri Agnew
39:45
Most welcome Paul
Paul McGrady
43:27
"yes, and"
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
45:46
One consideration relating to the development/recommendation of a “super panel” is whether this will create expectations (or issues) for the overall UDRP review that will happen in Phase 2 of the “main” RPMs PDP.
Paul McGrady
46:48
1. Consent to binding arbitration. That stays the implementation of the UDRP decision. 2. File in their court and take a chance 3. Super panel.
Paul McGrady
49:50
Right - Super panel would not be binding. The parties could bear the cost. Also, keep in mind that arbitration won't be speedy.
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
51:01
Yes and (see what I did there, Paul? ;) … the initial panel determination will be stayed for the duration.
Brian BECKHAM
51:18
so. Paul, if option 2 is invoked, and not successful, is the first instance UDRP case implemented?
Paul McGrady
52:56
@Brian, my thinking is yes, unless the losing respondent goes to court. But that is a detail to work out.
Brian BECKHAM
54:10
Just one other thought on Paul's intervention on time for arbitration (or super panel, I suppose), just like the UDRP process, we can build timelines in the process
Brian BECKHAM
55:55
right
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
55:56
Yes
Alexandra Excoffier (OECD)
57:02
Do we need in person hearings?
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
57:27
The paper discusses a few of this points in slightly greater detail.
Jay Chapman
57:27
Agree w Jeff
Brian BECKHAM
57:29
Jeff, at most, it should be optional (as is already under the UDRP)
Paul McGrady
57:38
credibility
Brian BECKHAM
58:20
@Jeff, automatically (time, costs), or at the discretion of the panel (perhaps on request of the parties)?
Jeffrey Neuman
58:29
@Brian - If this is going to be a substitute for substantive court analysis, then the option should be at the discretion of the Registrant.
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
58:46
Live online hearings (i.e. not just decision on the filings) could be a form of “in person”.
Jeffrey Neuman
59:18
Yes, in person could mean online
Paul McGrady
01:02:04
There is no choice of law provision now. Hard to imagine a court not applying their own local law, so it is probably implied in the current consent.
Chris Disspain
01:02:29
so what would we tell the arbitrator Paul?
Alexandra Excoffier (OECD)
01:04:08
why don't we indicate a substantive law in the arbitration clause?
Jay Chapman
01:09:34
Good question, Chris
Brian BECKHAM
01:11:08
correct
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
01:11:51
This could also depend on whether the decision is to go with a single set of institutional arbitration rules (e.g. WIPO, ICC etc.)
Brian BECKHAM
01:12:36
agreed
Jay Chapman
01:12:40
agreed
Alexandra Excoffier (OECD)
01:13:22
we don't necessarily need a provider to refer to rules
Jeffrey Neuman
01:15:06
experts :)
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
01:16:36
Nominet’s process is to not allow new evidence except in very limited cases (e.g. fraud)
Terri Agnew
01:17:07
@Paul, I remuted your computer connection and left telephone open
John McElwaine
01:19:09
@Paul - is the Super Panel available for Respondent's that have defaulted and lost and then want to appeal?
Paul McGrady
01:20:02
@John - sure. What if their privacy service didn't pass along the complaint? Or what if their lawyer told them to ignore?
Brian BECKHAM
01:20:35
Sorry, Paul, can you repeat, is the "pressure relief valve" the possible court avenue?
Paul McGrady
01:20:51
@Chris. Happy to, but welcome others to contribute.
Paul McGrady
01:21:38
@Brian, the pressure relief valve is the super panel that could cut down the number of court cases and arbitrations
Brian BECKHAM
01:22:32
OK, thx Paul
Steve Chan - ICANN Org
01:22:39
Me either
Paul McGrady
01:22:42
The super panel also works both ways - what if the IGO loses.
Terri Agnew
01:23:04
Next meeting: IGO Work Track Team meeting is scheduled on Monday, 21 June 2021 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Paul McGrady
01:23:14
Happy ICANN 71 everyone!
Osvaldo Novoa
01:23:16
Thank you bye