Hello all, sorry I’m late.

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.

I appreciate this proposal, and am curious what constitutes an “identifier”?

Sorry late. Cab drove me around the city

ha!

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"

Will dial in

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

See the UN org chart for examples of its organs and entities etc.: https://www.un.org/en/pdfs/un_system_chart.pdf

Does this definition also include INGOs?

(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)

Negative.

Thx

hand

No

No

no

Examples of UN “programs: UNDP, UNEP. Examples of UN “entities”: UNHCR, UNITAR

@Jay, no - it has to be part of the UN system.

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.

In any event, remember that bad faith still must be shown, we are only talking about "getting in the funnel"

It doesn't cover all IGO programmes, only UN

The UN system - I see

Agree. Expansion is a problem under all 3 options. But, meeting this definition is not a casual undertaking.

Yes, only “entities, organs or programs of the UN".

I wish it did ;-)

For the other two ways to qualify, it has to be the actual organization.

He was

@Paul, I see both zoom audio and telephone are open mic.

@Paul, I muted the zoom computer connection

Most welcome Paul

"yes, and"

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.

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.

Right - Super panel would not be binding. The parties could bear the cost. Also, keep in mind that arbitration won't be speedy.

Yes and (see what I did there, Paul? ;) … the initial panel determination will be stayed for the duration.

so. Paul, if option 2 is invoked, and not successful, is the first instance UDRP case implemented?

@Brian, my thinking is yes, unless the losing respondent goes to court. But that is a detail to work out.

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

right

Yes

Do we need in person hearings?

The paper discusses a few of this points in slightly greater detail.

Agree w Jeff

Jeff, at most, it should be optional (as is already under the UDRP)

credibility

@Jeff, automatically (time, costs), or at the discretion of the panel (perhaps on request of the parties)?

@Brian - If this is going to be a substitute for substantive court analysis, then the option should be at the discretion of the Registrant.

Live online hearings (i.e. not just decision on the filings) could be a form of “in person”.

Yes, in person could mean online

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.

so what would we tell the arbitrator Paul?

why don't we indicate a substantive law in the arbitration clause?

Good question, Chris

correct

This could also depend on whether the decision is to go with a single set of institutional arbitration rules (e.g. WIPO, ICC etc.)

agreed

agreed

we don't necessarily need a provider to refer to rules

experts :)

Nominet’s process is to not allow new evidence except in very limited cases (e.g. fraud)

@Paul, I remuted your computer connection and left telephone open

@Paul - is the Super Panel available for Respondent's that have defaulted and lost and then want to appeal?

@John - sure. What if their privacy service didn't pass along the complaint? Or what if their lawyer told them to ignore?

Sorry, Paul, can you repeat, is the "pressure relief valve" the possible court avenue?

@Chris. Happy to, but welcome others to contribute.

@Brian, the pressure relief valve is the super panel that could cut down the number of court cases and arbitrations

OK, thx Paul

Me either

The super panel also works both ways - what if the IGO loses.

Next meeting: IGO Work Track Team meeting is scheduled on Monday, 21 June 2021 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

Happy ICANN 71 everyone!

Thank you bye