Logo

051040040 EPDP SCRP IGOs Team Meeting
Terri Agnew - ICANN Org
22:27
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 Everyone in order for everyone to see chat.
Chris Disspain
24:17
Terri please promote Susan
Susan Anthony, USPTO
30:15
For reasons I know not, I had my usual hard time getting in; but I finally am here now. (In upgrading me to Panelist, my screen goes black and I get a message that I am being Connected, which will take a few moments...but it never does.)
Terri Agnew - ICANN Org
30:48
FYI, Paul will be joining late.
Terri Agnew - ICANN Org
34:37
**Reminder, when using chat, please select Everyone in order for everyone to see chat.
Jeffrey Neuman
34:59
Can that be confirmed?
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
35:07
Yes, it’s from the UDRP
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
35:08
agree to reflect UDRP language
Jeffrey Neuman
35:19
ok, then yes
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
35:44
(With a couple of very minor non-substantive grammatical “edits” for flow)
Jeffrey Neuman
36:07
I agree with you Chris.
zzzJustine Chew (Alternate - ALAC)
39:07
@jeff, not wiggle room but too many "conditions" for the arbitral tribunal to meet
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
39:09
tend to agree with Jeff here
zzzJustine Chew (Alternate - ALAC)
39:51
+! Chris, Jeff
Jeffrey Neuman
41:16
I didn't respond to the email, but I have some questions.
Susan Anthony, USPTO
41:44
Barry, could you make the text a bit larger, please?
Susan Anthony, USPTO
41:53
Thank you!
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
42:16
That’s correct, Chris. It was raised and discussed toward the end of that PDP.
Jeffrey Neuman
42:31
What I was told was that it was introduced too late into the process the last time to be considered.
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
50:02
It may not be relevant to this EPDP or the topic, but for completeness staff will note that this same proposal was also made by the same commentator to the RPM Phase 1 PDP Working Group (in relation to the URS) and not adopted.
Jeffrey Neuman
50:50
It does change things....it changes the role of the two parties.....
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
51:00
thx Mary, I think that is relevant
Jeffrey Neuman
51:26
But it would be loser pays
Jeffrey Neuman
51:29
right?
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
52:48
Fundamentally, adopting this proposal would be tantamount to this WG doing nothing.
Jeffrey Neuman
54:16
I disagree Brian. There are a bunch of elements on this proposal that could be examined.
Terri Agnew - ICANN Org
55:16
FYI, Paul McGrady has joined via telephone only (at this time)
Jeffrey Neuman
55:17
Kirikos leap of faith notice of objection
Jeffrey Neuman
57:07
sorry, that was a response to a private message asking me what we were discussing :)
Jeffrey Neuman
59:56
There is a difference between waiving an immunity in advance of filing a UDRP and becoming a Defendant, vs. choosing to waive the immunity as a plaintiff
Jeffrey Neuman
01:00:57
:)
Jeffrey Neuman
01:01:29
But at the tail end it is a choice.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:01:42
And loser pays.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:03:07
But we are not talking about contracts here. We are talking about the actions of an unrelated third party
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:13:01
(agree with Chris about consensus being invoked here)
Terri Agnew - ICANN Org
01:13:28
Reminder, when using chat, please select Everyone in order for everyone to see chat.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:13:31
But Chris made a point about us already concluding that our recommendation was to arbitrate.....
Jeffrey Neuman
01:14:12
FYI, I see Paul as an Attendee and I think he needs to be promoted
Jeffrey Neuman
01:15:12
This does not require an IGO to elect to go to court
Berry Cobb
01:15:48
@Jeff. Paul is phone only.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:18:32
Yes, but as a Plaintiff
Jeffrey Neuman
01:18:41
which is very different than being a defendant
Jeffrey Neuman
01:19:14
Can you bring up the charter
Berry Cobb
01:19:54
https://community.icann.org/display/GNSOIWT/2.+Charter
Jeffrey Neuman
01:21:29
Can we read 1-3 into the record as it is worded.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:21:45
Because #1 only talks about "account[ing]"
Jeffrey Neuman
01:22:15
And I am not sold on this one proposal either, but there are some interesting points
Berry Cobb
01:23:00
@Jeff 1-3 of what?
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
01:23:00
Essentially, the question for the EPDP Team is whether this proposal (and any others that other commentators may suggest) is the right policy solution to the problem this EPDP team was tasked to solve; including whether it is a “better” approach to the arbitration option.
zzzJustine Chew (Alternate - ALAC)
01:24:29
Who has the burden of proof
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
01:26:15
Wouldn’t the petitioner/complainant in any arbitration in this context be the respondent, not the IGO?
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
01:26:30
Since we are dealing with a situation where the respondent has lost the initial UDRP/URS?
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:26:50
(right, I have a comment on that)
Jeffrey Neuman
01:30:14
We can require a meaningful down payment for the filing of a notice of appeal (and hold it in escrow)
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
01:30:33
The EPDP Team’s current recommendation requires the IGO Complainant to agree to arbitration when submitting its complaint, and the registrar to wait to implement a UDRP/URS decision in the IGO Complainant’s favor, to allow the losing respondent the opportunity to agree to arbitrate and/or go to court. Hence the staff comment that the petitioner role for an arbitration in this context is going to be the losing registrant.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:32:08
Brian's point was that every registrant would "appeal" to prevent their name from being transferred after every UDRP
Jeffrey Neuman
01:32:32
But a natural safeguard is to require a substantial fee as a deposit
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
01:33:54
To clarify for the record, neither going to court nor embarking on arbitration is an “appeal” of a UDRP or URS decision; in both cases the proceeding is going to be a fresh look at the merits of the case.
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:34:33
@Jeff a not insignificant question is how that fee deposit safeguard would be managed (and by whom)
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:35:09
right/correct, thanks Mary, just using the term "appeal" for convenience
Jeffrey Neuman
01:37:39
@Brian - if this is not something that the Arbitration Providers can do, there are many escrow providers that can perform this function.
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:38:57
Speaking with a "provider hat on" it would not be a role we would wish to take on
Jeffrey Neuman
01:41:01
Yes, we can help isolate the elements that can be considered regardless of whether it is through a court action or through arbitration
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:42:30
thx