Logo

051040040 IGO Work Track Team Meeting - Shared screen with speaker view
Julie Bisland - ICANN Org
31:44
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Julie Bisland - ICANN Org
34:24
**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.
Mary Wong
35:57
On it
Berry Cobb
37:23
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BxGr2f1d5670Zgcr42a7grU-moa254la-_NdqA0EsN4/edit
Berry Cobb
38:05
@Brian, please repost to chat with All Panelist and Attendees
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
39:07
[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
Paul McGrady
40:21
yes
Alexandra Excoffier (OECD)
41:05
As long as the decision is final, either work
Paul McGrady
42:29
I like "Supreme Panel". Catchy
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
43:40
yes, understood, thx
Alexandra Excoffier (OECD)
45:32
instead of !
Mary Wong
48:05
@Paul, what if both parties agree to the “appeal” to the Supreme Panel (i.e. voluntary consent)?
Mary Wong
49:30
The same question will also arise if arbitration is being considered.
Paul McGrady
50:51
@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.
Mary Wong
51:12
@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).
Paul McGrady
52:23
@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
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
53:04
Right Paul, the current court language is about tolling the decision implementation (not a bar to action)
Mary Wong
55:12
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).
Berry Cobb
01:01:08
Jay youre breaking up
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:01:08
(no his line is broken)
Berry Cobb
01:03:27
@Jay, we missed probably the last minute of your statement in your last response back to Chris.
Mary Wong
01:04:04
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”.
Mary Wong
01:04:23
Sorry, REGISTRANT is pretending to be the IGO!!!
Paul McGrady
01:04:36
Creating a 6Ter (non-trademark) based separate dispute mechanism seems pretty far off the ranch
Paul McGrady
01:09:07
"otherwise likely to result in fraud or deception" is an Interstate freeway, not a footpath.
Mary Wong
01:09:44
@Paul, yes, presumably the final scope/text will need to be more precise (assuming the Work Track agrees this is a path worth pursuing).
Chris Disspain
01:10:06
agree Paul but that is a later discussion IF we can agree to move down the path
Paul McGrady
01:10:35
+1 Susan. I think 6ter is a red herring.
Mary Wong
01:12:29
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).
Julie Bisland - ICANN Org
01:13:32
**Members: reminder, when using chat, please select all panelists and attendees in order for everyone to see chat.
Berry Cobb
01:13:47
The .INT was also used if I recall. https://www.iana.org/domains/int/policy
Jeffrey Neuman
01:14:27
How would that list be updated and who would be the keeper of that list?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:14:57
@Susan - Wouldn't the US scrutinize that list just as much as the 6ter requests?
Mary Wong
01:15:11
The GAC had originally (2011-2012?) thought of just using .int but in submitting its final list the GAC specified the criteria I noted.
Paul McGrady
01:15:34
ha!
Mary Wong
01:17:24
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.”
Berry Cobb
01:17:31
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
Berry Cobb
01:17:42
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.
Paul McGrady
01:18:49
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.
Mary Wong
01:19:04
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).
Jeffrey Neuman
01:19:16
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
Jeffrey Neuman
01:21:32
"impersonating" could be seen akin to "diverting traffic from"
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:21:54
Agreed (narrower)
Jeffrey Neuman
01:22:08
I would rather not play with the scope/criteria
Jeffrey Neuman
01:25:11
(a) they are on the list
Jeffrey Neuman
01:25:17
(b) take out the waiver
Jeffrey Neuman
01:26:27
(c) if IGO wins, and registrant cannot challenge in court, you go to Super Panel
Jeffrey Neuman
01:26:56
The "List" needs some processed around generating it, updating it, etc.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:27:48
I think this solution creates the least amount of waves.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:28:25
I am not sure that the standard you are using is much narrower.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:29:15
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"
Jeffrey Neuman
01:32:03
you wouldn't have to show "registration" in bad faith
Paul McGrady
01:32:06
Without giving up on the 6Ter (non-trademark) concern, the Supreme Panel seems less radical than special igoDRP.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:32:37
We spent years (as a community) getting to "bad faith registration".
Mary Wong
01:33:18
@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).
Jeffrey Neuman
01:33:48
@Mary - That could substitute for 'use" in bad faith
Jeffrey Neuman
01:33:57
But not necessarily "registration is bad faith"
Jeffrey Neuman
01:34:30
"registration in bad faith"
Paul McGrady
01:34:48
Who feels like we just let 2 different genies out of their bottles at the same time?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:36:07
I am the GNSO liaison to the GAC
Jeffrey Neuman
01:36:23
So, I still look out for the GNSO :)
Jeffrey Neuman
01:37:24
But convey what the GNSO is doing to the GAC ;)
Jeffrey Neuman
01:40:54
Happy Passover this week :)
Paul McGrady
01:41:07
I'd prefer that we skip next week. I will be in transit that day (from the holiday the day before).
Paul McGrady
01:41:28
+1 Chris - yes, it will be difficult to get people's attention this week.
Paul McGrady
01:45:01
"Second Look Arbitration" Panel or SLAP
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:47:24
yes of course, homework noted
Berry Cobb
01:48:54
Hand raised
Mary Wong
01:49:04
Staff has updated the Google Doc with the general agreements/discussion points from today.
Paul McGrady
01:49:18
Thanks Mary. Can you send that link again
Mary Wong
01:49:30
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BxGr2f1d5670Zgcr42a7grU-moa254la-_NdqA0EsN4/edit?usp=sharing
Paul McGrady
01:49:35
Thanks Mary!
Julie Bisland - ICANN Org
01:49:59
Next call: Monday, 12 April 2021 at 15:00 UTC (invite will be sent out shortly)
Mary Wong
01:51:38
@Kavouss, yes we can do that (although we’ve currently captured the gist in three new bullet points on the Google Doc).
Paul McGrady
01:51:39
Thanks Chris! Great call today. Lots to ponder and take back to our various groups.
Jay Chapman
01:51:54
Thanks everyone