Hello to so many on this list who are already friends! And, hello to those of you who I don't know yet who will become friends! I'm looking forward to working with all of you to find a way forward for this important topic!

Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en

Happy to.

This is the IGO Protections WG that created the recommendation to discuss curative rights: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/igo-ingo

IGO Curative Rights WG that Mary just mentioned: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/igo-ingo-crp-access

@Brian, is there a link to that 6ter database so that we can see the scope of the potential marks holders that would be affected by whatever we come up with here?

@Paul, yes, there is a searchable online tool; one sec.

https://www.wipo.int/ipdl/en/6ter/

Thanks Berry!

Thanks Berry!

thank you Brian

Implemented Policy thus far: Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Policy - https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/igo-ingo-protection-policy-2020-02-18-en

Reserved Names list: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reserved-2013-07-08-en

In addition i.a. to GAC Advice this may be useful reading: https://www.wipo.int/en/docs/icannletter14082019.pdf

Thank you, Brian

For clarity, we aren't to build a new dispute mechanism, but instead find a way to tweak the UDRP and URS to balance the interests between an IGO that prevailed and a registrant that lost (but who believes the UDRP panelist got it wrong).

@Paul, that would seem to be the gist of the GNSO Council’s instructions (as well as account for jurisdictional immunity) but, as I mentioned, that is not what the GAC advice says.

My microphone is currently not working but I write here :)

thanks Iona

I'm unable to raise my hand, but would like to speak

I’ll put you in the queue

thanks

As a reference, you can find the roster and other materials of the WT on its wiki space: https://community.icann.org/display/GNSOIWT/4.+WT+Members+and+mailing+list The roster was last updated on 11 Feb 2021.

@Kavouss, that is why we thought it important to highlight the scope of this Work Track at the outset. It is what we have to work with at this time.

IGO CRPM Final Report: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-crp-access-final-17jul18-en.pdf

@Yrjo and everyone - Professor Swaine’s memo is one of the specific documents that the GNSO Council highlighted (in the addendum that is our chartering document) as being something this Work Track should reference, amongst other historical and preparatory documents.

we see and hear you

@Alexandra, noted - from the staff’s perspective, we are not trying to downplay the rights and privileges of IGOs; we are just conscious that it is for each court to determine if, in any one instance, an IGO has immunity from its jurisdiction.

John MC E thanks for your support

or as we say it, for each court to uphold immunities, not determine

Thank you, Alexandra - we will be sure to be as careful as we can with terminology and “shorthand”, going forward.

(If possible to also join the Tour de Table and answer those specific 2 questions, might I raise my hand for that purpose?)

yes indeed

+1 Susan.

@Susan, I think I said “six or seven” as well ;) (which it is if we stopped counting at the point the prior Curative Rights WG delivered its report) … but it’s definitely longer if you count from the IGO legal counsels’ letter in (I think) December 2011!

"courageously creative"

so 10+ yrs - OMG

yeah we need to finalize it as Susan alert us

Not to be a wet blanket, but even longer. https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2007/igo-names

I think the topic of iGOs came up in WIPO 1 or WIPO 2, so it is way more than the 10 years.

Second WIPO Report: 2001

@Berry, oh yes, if we want to go back beyond just what led to the first IGO-INGO PDP, there is that mid-2000s effort. Actually EVEN earlier, in ICANN-land, following the Second WIPO Report Brian mentioned, there was an ICANN community effort under the then-president!

@Brian - I remember that report and the meetings discussing that.....so that makes me the old timer

nice to meet you Susan. I was chair of Brazilian Patent Office and started in GAC in 2000 - was member of the Board twice but I am here more now from At large and have work in the mediation and dispute resolution in this country so looking forward to hear your thoughts

@Jeff, maybe you also remember the 2003-2004 Joint Working Group that ICANN set up following the Second WIPO Process :) (For historical reference, the 2001 report from the WIPO process, the ICANN Joint Working Group, the 2007 previous Issue Report that did not lead to a policy effort, and the 2012-2013 GNSO PDP that focused on preventative (not curative) protections are all cited in the Issue Report for the Curative Rights PDP that led to the five recommendations, for which this Work Track is considering Recommendation #5.

@Mary - I remember that too. Didn't Jonathan Cohen lead that Board effort )

@Jeff, yes Jonathan was the chair of the Joint Working Group :)

Agree with Kavouss: It sounds like we have a lot of positive problem solvers in this group. I am very optimistic after this call.

perhaps what would be good is if Brian and others could bring in or send us the documents or checklist what they use to arbitrate as a way forward and the creativity willl come and govt docs. are also worded in ways what we could eventually make things move forward

Berry, your project managing is harshing our mellow. :-)

Let's keep in green!

The staff would like to thank everyone for your willingness to explore a creative solution while being aware of the scope that was set by the GNSO Council. We are very much looking forward to facilitating and supporting your discussions, including providing you with the requested historical information, documents, research we have done and summaries of previous policy options that were discussed. We have noted Yrjo’s request and Brian’s suggestion as action items from today.

@Berry - do you use Microsoft Project or something else for these?

I have a checklist that The Hague uses but their it’s a panel of judges but creativity can be only good for all even for society at large because at the end of the day is protecting everyone including the society and community at large.

What Mary said! I’m here to backup Mary and look forward to working with you all.

@Paul - Ha! my code name is "PM wet blanket"

I was just ounting back to 2012 when a group of IGO representatives stopped me in the hotel hallway. I do not know why that meeting sticks in my mind, in particular, But, to all who wrote that the time is even (considerably) more, yup I know - I've been around since pre-ICANN days,

The IGO Work Track Team meeting is scheduled on Monday, 01 March 2021 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes - invite will be sent out shortly after this meeting.

Thanks everyone!

Thanks Chris