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. Alternates not replacing members 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.

@Paul, this is noted.

Here's a link to the Council's transcript of the 20 May call. Page 51 starts the update on IGO WT: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2021/transcript/transcript-gnso-council-20may21-en.pdf

Confirm next meeting is scheduled: IGO Work Track Team meeting is scheduled on Monday, 07 June 2021 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

Here too it's a holiday today

Right but Jeff the IGO would not be raising that objection

I’m not sure I follow Jeff

It stems from the application of the UDRP

it has nothing to do with potential arbitration between the Rr and RNH

I'm reposting as I accidently left out attendees: Wouldn't the registrant consent through registration (if the arbitration is baked into the UDRP)? Then, the only consent issue is the whether or not the IGO consents?

@Jeff - why does it work for the UDRP and not arbitration?

I agree. I'd like to keep going while we track this down.

I have no issue with moving forward to talk about arbitration.

As I stated, I am not opposed conceptually to it. I just cant see how we can compel it....but that is why I asked for a legal opinion from specialists.

Can we explore shifting the timeline for the consent, e.g. if the losing registrant does not consent to arbitration after a short deadline, the domain name is transferred and the registrant has to try to get it back. If the losing registrant agrees to binding arbitration within the short deadline, the losing registrant keeps the domain name until the arbitrator rules.

So, you are saying that if a Registrant within 10 days wants to go to court and not to arbitration, then the name will be transferred regardless?

@Jeff - could be less than 10 days and would only apply in cases where IGO is on the other side.

Why would a registrant want to agree to that? And why are we treating IGOs as a preferred class of UDRP Complainants?

We wouldn't. 10 days is a stay in any case, court or arbitration

If a case is dismissed without prejudice, then the domain name would be transferred, which is why a registrant would agree to arbitration.

Arbitration is "live to fight another day."

We are talking about two different court paths

One is within 10 days of a UDRP to stay implementation; the other is operative irrespective of the UDRP process

why not give registrant a choice

instead of requiring them to go to court

Agree Alexandra. The registrant will have a choice.

I fully agree with Paul's logic

Could we pick an established arbitration service as a strawman process?

But Jeff in the IGO context IGOs are not able to submit to court jurisdiction

Arbitration is legal recourse

@Jeff - but now you are creating a special class of registrants. I'm OK with that, but we have to be consistent since you were worried about creating a special class of complainant.

No, I am not.

You have created the special class of complainants by eliminating the mutual jurisdiction clause

which is fine.....but then you have to try to also accommodate Registrants as well.

But Jay that *is* the fundamental issue that we have been tasked to address.

And as has been stated numerous times, the idea of an agent has been discussed amongst IGOs and is not an an acceptable “solution”

@Jay, if we transfer our right to an agent, they will still have immunities

I agree Brian...we are trying to address the mutual jurisdiction consent issue. But why do we then need to also make it additionally harder for registrants (eg., you have a choice....either court or arbitration).

@Jay - agent stepping into the shoes is a fairly foreign concept in the trademark law context. Not saying it couldn't be done, but it is not a natural fit. Happy to keep talking about it.

Arbitrations have become more expensive these days than court action... :)

Agree Susan, that was what the chart I shared last call was supposed to unpack a bit

Just a note that the procedural mechanism regarding the use of agents or licensees was a point that the IGOs and other commenters provided feedback on during the original PDP’s Public Comment period on its Initial Report.

@Mary - Was this concept included in the legal opinion?

@Jeff, we’ll need to check. I think it was, at least briefly.

Thanks Brian. It would be good to have those older comments brought forward.

Staff can provide a summary if it will help move things forward.

They would be useful to Jay & Company if there is going to be a proposal on how the Agency Solution would work.

I'm dropping now.

IGOs very closely all of followed the prior WG

Jay never loses :)

@Jeff, confirming that the PDP expert (Professor Edward Swaine, GWU) did address the question of the potential risks to immunity in a situation where an IGO assigns the right to use its name (mark) to another party to enable that other party to file as the complainant.

@Jay: But why not give registrant choice not to go to court and arbitrate instead?

@Alexandra - I understand your reluctance. But you are telling the Registrants 2 things. First, you must get rid of the consent to mutual jurisdiction clause. Second, you need to restructure the way you do things.

IGOs are unable to consent to jurisdiction by participating in a UDRP, so if that clause remains, we have no possible solution

Understood Alexandra completely. But you have to accommodate a little, right. If that clause goes away, then perhaps the view against just 1 proceeding could ease a little.

In other words, to accommodate IGOs, we get rid of the consent issue. But now we try to figure out how to balance and accommodate Registrants.

Perhaps that is in the arbitration itself...but lets not close the door

@Jeff, but that is why it is called an alternative dispute resolution procedure, alternative to court litigation

Well there are different forms of ADR. You have mediation, arbitration, etc.

Not all of them foreclose court options

FYI Nominet’s legal counsel met with the original PDP working group to describe Nominet’s process.

Can never go wrong with garlic!

I believe Nominet's procedures do not rule out court action, right?

@Jeff, so you are proposing arbitration and then court?

Its good and effective....but there is always a backstop.

@Alexandra, I am not proposing anything other than not taking it off the table yet.

10-4 Chris