- Gnso-igo-ingo-crp - lists.icann.org

IGO WG - Draft Report in Word Format
by Paul Keating May 11, 2018

May 11, 2018

Mary, I had thought you agreed to forward the current Draft in WORD format. I have not yet received it. Please send it asap given the need to quietly provide feedback. Thanks, Paul Keating

1 0

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Current Summary (May 9, 2018) of Public Display of Possible Consensus
by Paul Keating May 10, 2018

May 10, 2018

Phil, I respectfully ask that you halt this bickering. Our mandate - post appeal - was to work towards a consensus. In my mind anything that gets us there is a good thing and should not be ignored. I encourage you to elicit any consensus from those on the call AND to include the results of the poll as well. On 5/10/18, 5:30 PM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> wrote: >For the record, I object to any display of, reference to, or other use of >the spreadsheet provided by George during today¹s call on the grounds >that it constitutes the results of an illicit poll that was not conducted >in conformity with GNSO WG Guidelines. > >I have no objection to WG members stating their policy preferences during >the call so long as the illicit poll results are not referenced. > >Sent from my iPhone > >> On May 10, 2018, at 10:04 AM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: >> >> Hi folks, >> >> In preparation for today's call, I've generated an Excel spreadsheet >> version of the updated Google Spreadsheet: >> >> >>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQrdpthCvFIGoECeVWbAuz315 >>diOKXIj2JoO5XhLzk7C_9ariI3NKF8oOLt3PMsBIZg6JMXSvCiOANV/pubhtml >> >> as well as a PDF of the Summary page. They're attached. If folks have >> additions/updates/changes, let me know. (can easily update the live >> Google spreadsheet; PDF and XLS generation/distribution takes longer). >> >> If ICANN staff would add them to the Wiki for today's call, that'd be >> constructive. >> >> See you in 2 hours. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> George Kirikos >> 416-588-0269 >> http://www.leap.com/ >> >> >> >> >>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:31 PM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: >>> Just a quick heads up that I've updated the Google spreadsheet to >>> change Paul T's support for Option #1 to yellow from green (his >>> support depends on what happens with Option #6). I won't regenerate >>> the PDF/XLS at this time (pending any other changes or additions). If >>> there are any other changes desired, please let me know. >>> >>> >>>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQrdpthCvFIGoECeVWbAuz31 >>>5diOKXIj2JoO5XhLzk7C_9ariI3NKF8oOLt3PMsBIZg6JMXSvCiOANV/pubhtml >>> >>> (should update changes automatically within 5 minutes, if you loaded >>> it previously) >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> George Kirikos >>> 416-588-0269 >>> http://www.leap.com/ >>> >>>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 7:56 PM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: >>>> Here we go --- 11 responses (so far) summarized at: >>>> >>>> >>>>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQrdpthCvFIGoECeVWbAuz3 >>>>15diOKXIj2JoO5XhLzk7C_9ariI3NKF8oOLt3PMsBIZg6JMXSvCiOANV/pubhtml >>>> >>>> and attached as PDF and XLS spreadsheets. >>>> >>>> Happy to add more or make any changes. >>>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> >>>> George Kirikos >>>> 416-588-0269 >>>> http://www.leap.com/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 7:36 PM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> >>>>>wrote: >>>>> Oops, I forgot to attach the PDF and XLS spreadsheet in the prior >>>>> email (the web link works). But, Paul Tattersfield has just added an >>>>> 11th response, so I will re-send very shortly, after regenerating the >>>>> PDF and XLS. >>>>> >>>>> Sincerely, >>>>> >>>>> George Kirikos >>>>> 416-588-0269 >>>>> http://www.leap.com/ >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 7:33 PM, George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>> Hi folks, >>>>>> >>>>>> I've summarized the responses to date, for the benefit of tomorrow's >>>>>> call. I'd appreciate it if staff would add these to the wiki and >>>>>> agenda. >>>>>> >>>>>> There have been 10 responses so far (more are certainly welcome), >>>>>>and >>>>>> I've summarized them in a spreadsheet (attached), and also in a PDF >>>>>> (just the first page of the PDF; couldn't see an easy way to get all >>>>>> the other tabs into the PDF automatically; other tabs are just the >>>>>>raw >>>>>> posts). >>>>>> >>>>>> One can also see it via a web browser at: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQrdpthCvFIGoECeVWbAu >>>>>>z315diOKXIj2JoO5XhLzk7C_9ariI3NKF8oOLt3PMsBIZg6JMXSvCiOANV/pubhtml >>>>>> >>>>>> The colour coding is my personal interpretation. I'm happy to make >>>>>>any >>>>>> changes/updates, if folks so desire. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sincerely, >>>>>> >>>>>> George Kirikos >>>>>> 416-588-0269 >>>>>> http://www.leap.com/ >> >> >> <PublicDisplayOfPossibleConsensus-20180510.xlsx> >> <PublicDisplayOfPossibleConsensus-Summary-20180510.pdf> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

6 7

Recording, attendance & WebEx chat for IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP on 10 May 2018
by Julie Bisland May 10, 2018

May 10, 2018

Dear All, Please find the WebEx Chat attached, and the attendance and MP3 recording below for the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms held on Thursday, 10 May 2018 at 16:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-pdp-10may18-en.mp3 The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar Attendees: Crystal Ondo David Maher George Kirikos Jay Chapman Jim Bikoff Nat Cohen Paul Raynor Keating Paul Tattersfield Petter Rindforth Phil Corwin Reg Levy Susan Kawaguchi Zak Muscovitch Apologies: none ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Berry Cobb Julie Bisland ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/ Wiki Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/9hUFBQ Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Keeping the momentum moving forward -- the topic of subsidies for IGOs (rec #4)
by George Kirikos May 10, 2018

May 10, 2018

Hi folks, Good call today. Let's keep the momentum moving forward constructively. I think there are mixed opinions on the topic of ICANN subsidizing UDRP/URS actions brought by IGOs (recommendation #4). On principle, I'm opposed to ICANN subsidizing anyone's disputes (and said so during the public comments to the initial draft report). Others have said the same. I'm not sure there's a majority or consensus. With ICANN's budgetary issues, it might also be an issue of whether the money even exists (perhaps take it from GAC funding). But let's see if we might be able to think outside the box. On the call, I suggested one modification might be to make sure equal funds are on both sides (e.g. if the IGO files a disputes, both its fees and the fees of the respondent/registrant would be covered equally). That would be better, in my view, than what's currently on the table. Another possibility, which creates linkage with other options for different recommendations, might be the following. There's currently quite a lot of support, given the emails of the past week, for Option #1, and slightly less support for Option #6: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQrdpthCvFIGoECeVWbAuz315di… As a means of finishing things up cleanly and definitively now, and in this PDP, rather than using Option #4 (which seems to be the most popular), how about something like this: (I'll use the example from Option #6) - we know that mediation saves both sides money in UDRP/URS, as 30% of the Nominet cases get settled - take some of that money that is saved by both sides (i.e. a small fee from them when there's successful mediation, i.e. a reduction in otherwise rebated fees), and apportion it to the subsidization of IGO UDRP/URS disputes (i.e. some money gets kicked backed to ICANN, a little fund is created, e.g. $100/dispute in terms of settled cases goes back to ICANN, to be redistributed via a fund for UDRP/URS disputes brought by (qualified) IGOs (and both sides can be funded, if the dispute is defended) - we go with Option #1 (which is incorporated into Option #6 anyhow, if the quirk of process gets encountered) as the solution to that procedural quirk (if it goes to court, and if immunity is asserted successfully, then both sides go back to square one, UDRP/URS result is set aside, and they can fight it out from scratch without any interference from ICANN's policies. - one might add something like "if they take the subsidies, then they're bound to...." Anyhow, the above occurred to me during the call itself, but I wasn't sure how to present it, so I thought I'd send it to the list. It's kind of a "hidden tax" on mediation settlements, though, so obviously objectionable from that aspect (trying to be pragmatic, though). The complexity is that it intertwines the various options --- representing a bit of "horse trading". But, it tries to get a win/win/win out of things, in an attempt to move us forward. One could have done the above without starting from Option #6 (just starting from Option #1), but then one wouldn't have a pool of money (i.e. generated from successfully mediated cases) to fund all this. Otherwise, there'd need to be money from ICANN (which is already part of Rec #4, but I doubt that money exists). Anyhow, just something to contemplate. Might be way too complex. I don't think we've explored "horse trading" between the different recommendations before, to come to a global consensus (we kind of talked about it in the RPM PDP, although at much earlier stage of that PDP than where we are in this IGO PDP). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

1 0

Current Summary (May 9, 2018) of Public Display of Possible Consensus
by George Kirikos May 10, 2018

May 10, 2018

Hi folks, I've summarized the responses to date, for the benefit of tomorrow's call. I'd appreciate it if staff would add these to the wiki and agenda. There have been 10 responses so far (more are certainly welcome), and I've summarized them in a spreadsheet (attached), and also in a PDF (just the first page of the PDF; couldn't see an easy way to get all the other tabs into the PDF automatically; other tabs are just the raw posts). One can also see it via a web browser at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQrdpthCvFIGoECeVWbAuz315di… The colour coding is my personal interpretation. I'm happy to make any changes/updates, if folks so desire. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

2 6

Six Options: Weighing In
by Reg Levy May 9, 2018

May 9, 2018

Name: Reg Levy Option 1: YES Option 2: NO Option 3: NO Option 4: GRUDGINGLY YES IF NECESSARY Option 5: NO Option 6: NEEDS REFINEMENT BUT MIGHT WORK Option 1 seems the most reasonable under the circumstances and the most fair to both parties to such a dispute. If, for some reason, option 1 is absolutely untenable, I would grudgingly support option 4. I note, however, that, in order to not be seen as entirely buck-passing with regard to our remit, we ought rather to submit to the RPM WG a strong recommendation to proceed with option 1. (Option 2 I find unacceptable because I don't find most recent registration date to be sufficiently determinative of an end user's intent to abrogate their rights. Option 3 would be far more elegant if there were simply an appeal process built into URS/UDRP but there isn't, since a losing party can appeal to local courts…except where an IGO is involved. Option 5 is acceptable but in light of the perfectly-reasonable option 4 as a poorer alternative to option 1, unnecessary. Option 6 might be acceptable but would require further refinement.) Apologies for my brief absence from the list. My SOI has been updated. Reg Levy (310) 963-7135 Sent from my iPhone.

2 1

Public Display of Possible Consensus
by George Kirikos May 9, 2018

May 9, 2018

Hi folks, Since there's been no response to the call for the true numbers to be posted: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001140.html let's attempt to do this transparently. I believe we might already have a consensus. The 6 options (not mutually exclusive!) were at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-March/001093.html Briefly: Option 1: set aside the UDRP/URS decision, to put both sides back in the same position Option 2: use Option 1 for existing domain names, and Option 3 for newly created domains Option 3: arbitration Option 4: refer it to the RPM PDP Option 5: lock the domains in the event of an "in rem" lawsuit (not just "in personam") Option 6: mediation as a step, and then back to Option 1 if need be If you'd like to post your position/thoughts in an open and transparent manner, please do so in this thread, using the following template ---------------------------------- Name: Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Option 4: Option 5: Option 6: ---------------------------------- For myself: Option 1: yes, I support this (ultimately my first choice) Option 2: yes, I can support this as a compromise Option 3: no, I can't support this Option 4: yes, I can support this; Paul Keating's prior suggestion of having Option 1 be the interim solution if Option 4 is Option 5: yes, I support this, and it works in parallel to all other options Option 6: yes, I support mediation Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

10 13

LET'S GET BACK TO WORK!!!!!!!!!!
by Paul Keating May 9, 2018

May 9, 2018

Petter, With all respect I find your email below to be both misleading and counter-productive. George¹s appeal had the goals set out in the body of the appeal. They never changed during the appeal process. I know because was a participant in most, if not all of the conference calls dealing with the appeal. And frankly I supported his position and right to appeal. The appeal was driven largely by the perception that the co-chairs were attempting to force the group to adopt their preferred option (#3). In an effort to support #3, the co-chairs referenced attempted to paint it as the only politically acceptable solution. You both also attempted to undermine opposition by painting it as originating from a group that was representative of only one group that was economic aligned. Since the appeal process began there has been no work undertaken by the WG. The attempt by staff and Council representatives to describe consensus has been flawed in-as-muchas it did not properly count let alone describe the results of their ³investigation². Things have continued to fester and no process has been made towards developing a final report. There have been no calls and no post-appeal attempt by any of the co-chairs to investigate, confirm or consilidate consensus so that drafting of a final report can begin. As to George¹s recent attempt to solicit consensus views, I applaud him and have participated. His attempts are merely filling the vacuum left as a result of non-action by the co-chairs. You will also note that contrary to the initial idea (an anonymous poll) that was suggested by Co-chairs (which lead to the appeal), George¹s email reflects a transparent approach that includes the member name. The ³replies² from Phil and now from you do not address any of the substantive issues we are facing as a WG. Rather they seem to be more bickering about process. We need to move past this and get back to work. As a member I respectfully request the the Co-Chairs re-start the process by initiating WG calls so that the results of the email poll can be discussed and others encouraged to participate either by email or during the calls. Sincerely, Paul Raynor Keating, Esq. Law.es <http://law.es/> Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain) Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK) Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US) Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810 Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450 Skype: Prk-Spain email: Paul(a)law.es THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS. Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein. NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu> Reply-To: <petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu> Date: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 11:42 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Something Magical Is Happening (was Re: Public Display of Possible Consensus) > Dear All WG members, > > As you are all well aware about, it is one single WG member's action that has > stopped us for finalizing our vote, decision and report. Mr Kirikos have been > very distinct in his efforts to prevent us other WG members from continuing > our work. > > Mr Kirikos have indeed been successful in his plans to move the > decision-making power from this WG to the GNSO Council. > > All of us that have spent so many hours of our working time to find an > acceptable solution have to live with this result. > > If Mr Kirikos had had honest plans to work together for an acceptable and > effective result, taking into account all groups of interest, we had already > by the end of 2017 had the official vote, which is now unofficially for some > reason initiated privately 5 months later, in a way that normally (if > suggested by someone else) had been strongly opposed by Mr Kirikos... > > It had indeed been good if we (the WG group) at least had possibilities to > have informal meetings and discussions during these 5 months, but we had to > follow the formalities and the fact that the section 3.7 appeal of December > 19, 2017 was processing, and the result of that. > > > Finally, to all of you fellow WG members that joined this WG initially with > the goal to find a workable solution on our topics, considering both IGO and > domain holders interest, that have participated in discussions in a practical > and decent way, providing good ideas during these years, it has indeed been a > pleasure to work with you. I certainly hope that we in some way - despite the > situation can at least have some recommendations accepted (at least those > others that we made conclusions on at an early stage) by GNSO Council. > > Best, > Petter > > -- > Petter Rindforth, LL M > > > > > > Fenix Legal KB > Stureplan 4c, 4tr > 114 35 Stockholm > Sweden > Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 > Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 > E-mail: petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu > www.fenixlegal.eu > > NOTICE > This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to > whom it is addressed. > It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and > attorney work product. > If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested > not to read, > copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. > Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. > Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu > Thank you > > > 8 maj 2018 21:49:02 +02:00, skrev George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com>: >> Hi Phil (and Heather/Susan/Donna/Rafik), >> >> [changing the subject, so that the show of support thread isn't >> interfered with; the show of support thread is at: >> >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/date.html >> >> for Heather/Susan/Donna/Rafik to view] >> >> 1. The numbers in the summary report were wrong. Susan and/or ICANN >> staff wouldn't correct them, despite repeated requests. See: >> >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001140.html >> >> 2. Lots of other things were wrong with that Summary Report, which were >> ignored: >> >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001139.html >> >> 3. Susan even said, on April 26th: >> >> "It is the role of the WG, not the liaison or the Council, to drive >> the effort to a final document for presentation to Council." >> >> The working group, *not* the liaison or the Council. We're driving the >> effort ourselves, with or without you. Notice she said "WG", and not >> "Chair", either. >> >> 4. This isn't the "anonymous" poll that I objected to via the Section >> 3.7 appeal, either. >> >> 5. This isn't even a "poll" -- re-read the post at: >> >> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001142.html >> >> whereby folks are publicly and transparently displaying their support >> on the mailing list, just like they've been trying to do during calls >> and on the mailing list in the past. >> >> 6. Consensus is being reached, whether you like it or not. Our hard >> work isn't going to be hijacked by that tiny minority that backs >> Option #3 (i.e. presumably you, Petter and someone else, if the "3" in >> the summary report is even accurate). >> >> If you're unwilling to recognize that we're forming a consensus, then >> you might want to contemplate resigning as co-chair. I think the GNSO >> Council would face a constitutional crisis if Heather/Susan submit any >> report that doesn't recognize the *actual* level of support for the >> options that exists, that members are prepared to go on the record >> about (unfiltered by staff or Susan in their faulty "summary report"). >> >> 7. I'd like to know if Petter feels the same way as you do, in his >> capacity as co-chair, or whether he's willing to recognize that >> something magical is happening, that we're finally coalescing around a >> consensus. Is Petter going to stand with Phil, or recognize this >> consensus? >> >> 8. The recordings of the calls between you/Petter and Susan/Heather >> have still not been posted to the wiki (despite being requested >> already). Why don't you see that they get posted, with transcripts? >> You'll have a lot of time between now and then, since you've said you >> have "nothing further to say." Is there something in those recordings >> that you don't want the public to see? Remember the transparency >> requirements of ICANN and the working group, and that my call was >> already posted. >> >> 9. I hope others who are interested in displaying publicly their >> support for the various options will not be deterred by Phil's post, >> and will continue to work to drive this PDP to a successful >> conclusion. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> George Kirikos >> 416-588-0269 >> http://www.leap.com/ >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com> wrote: >>> While I nominally remain co-chair of this WG, control over it has >>> essentially been assumed by the Chair of the GNSO Council via the Council >>> Liaison, as the WG's authority is solely derived from Council. >>> >>> I find it both ironic and sad that the WG was brought to a halt by Mr. >>> Kirikos months ago because the co-chairs proposed to poll the full WG >>> membership to initiate the consensus call process, and that he persisted in >>> that appeal even after the co-chairs modified that proposal to assure that >>> the poll would be conducted in a fully transparent matter -- yet now he has >>> elected to conduct his own poll. >>> >>> Mr. Kirikos has no authority under the GNSO WG Guidelines to conduct such a >>> poll and its results have no official status. >>> >>> I must also note that option 4 -- referral of any decisions on the IGO CRP >>> matter to the RPM Review WG -- is fundamentally incompatible with any of the >>> other options, which would make policy decisions now within the IGO CRP WG. >>> Yet several members are supporting both option 4 and others. Whether that >>> RPM WG will address IGO immunity issues specifically, or sovereign immunity >>> issues more generally, and whether addressing that subject requires a >>> Charter change, will be determined by its membership at the appropriate >>> time. >>> >>> The Recommended Next Steps contained in the "SUMMARY REPORT FROM THE GNSO >>> COUNCIL LIAISON ON THE CURRENT STATUS OF CONSULTATIONS WITH THE IGO-INGO >>> CURATIVE RIGHTS PDP WORKING GROUP (12 April 2018)" continue to be those that >>> govern this WG as it comes to a conclusion. >>> >>> I know that some members of this WG may wish to engage me in debate or >>> dialogue regarding the above statement, but I shall have nothing further to >>> say in advance of Thursday's call. >>> >>> >>> Philip S. Corwin >>> Policy Counsel >>> VeriSign, Inc. >>> 12061 Bluemont Way >>> Reston, VA 20190 >>> 703-948-4648/Direct >>> 571-342-7489/Cell >>> >>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp > > _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

4 4

FOR DISCUSSION: Draft recommendations & options
by Mary Wong May 9, 2018

May 9, 2018

Dear all, For the upcoming Working Group call that is scheduled for tomorrow, Thursday 10 May at 1600 UTC, please find attached a short document which contains suggested draft text for those recommendations that the Working Group has in general agreed on (e.g. standing to file a UDRP and URS complaint) as well as the text of the six policy options under discussion in respect of the outstanding issue concerning IGO jurisdictional immunity. Susan, Phil and Petter (in their respective capacities as Council liaison and Working Group co-chairs) believe that the time we have allocated for our Thursday call will be best spent in determining if the language of the draft recommendations is accurate, and whether the group will be able to reach consensus on the remaining issue. As such, all Working Group members are encouraged to attend the call tomorrow if you can. For completeness, we are also attaching two other documents: 1. We have updated the numbers on the Summary Report that had been circulated previously to this Working Group, and that was discussed on our last call. We wish to clarify that the one numerical inconsistency was due to our having to account for an email submission that came in after Susan’s office hours, but this does not affect or change the numbers reported as to which option was preferred and by how many. 2. A draft final report – prepared following Heather’s and Susan’s request that the group provide a report to the GNSO Council in time for the Council’s next meeting in May 2018. Please note that, should the Working Group agree to submit a report to the Council, we have the option to submit this draft report as a placeholder on 14 May (the document deadline for the Council meeting) but that does not mean it cannot be further edited prior to Council action if the Working Group believes substantive (rather than, say, typographical or grammatical errors which will need to be fixed in any case) changes are needed. However, as noted, the focus of the call tomorrow will be on finalizing language for agreed recommendations as well as attempting to determine consensus on the six policy options, rather than on editing the draft report. Staff will also post these documents to the Working Group wiki space before the meeting for your easy reference. Thank you. Best regards Mary & Steve

1 0

Revision to Voting by PRK Re: Public Display of Possible Consensus
by Paul Keating May 9, 2018

May 9, 2018

All (and Mary) I would like to modify my voting as to Option 6 to ³YES². My vote(for the purpose of the consensus conversation should thus be modified to the following: ---------------------------------- Name: PAUL KEATING Option 1: YES Option 2: NO Option 3: NO Option 4: YES Option 5: NO Option 6: YES As to the modification, when voting initially, I had not considered that this WG would only be making the suggestion that mediation programs be adopted BUT that the actual drafting of any language required to implement would be conducted by subsequent working groups, (i.e. that referenced in #4). As I have said during previous calls and in previous emails, I STRONGLY favor any form of mediation and have previously provided my thoughts and concerns over the Nominet program. I ENCOURAGE Brian and anyone else (at either WIPO or NAF) to initiate such a program. Thus, I favor a recommendation by this WG that such a process be undertaken. And, if the subsequent WG do not adopted language for inclusion within the UDRP or URS, no ADR would be precluded from initiating such a program on a voluntary basis. Paul Keating On 5/8/18, 2:36 PM, "Paul Keating" <Paul(a)law.es> wrote: >All (and Mary), > >I have previously stated my position regarding these matters but am >growing concerned that my vote has not been counted in the ensuing >documentation that has been issued. > >To be VERY clear please note my voting as to the options as follows: > > >---------------------------------- > >Name: PAUL KEATING >Option 1: Yes >Option 2: NO >Option 3: NO >Option 4: YES >Option 5: NO >Option 6: NO > >Please note that my preference is for #1 (UDRP decision becomes void) BUT >I also want to be counted for #4 (referral to RPM WG). > >Thank you, > >Sincerely, > >Paul Raynor Keating, Esq. > >Law.es <http://law.es/> > >Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain) > >Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK) >Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US) > >Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810 > >Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450 > >Skype: Prk-Spain > >email: Paul(a)law.es > > > >THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN >INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. >THE >INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO >WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER >OF >PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE DELETE THE >EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS. > > > >Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department >rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice >contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or >intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the >purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any >taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other >person >in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person >any transaction or matter addressed herein. > > > >NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN >ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS >FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT, >WHICH THIS IS NOT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING >CONTAINED >HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE > > > > > > > > >---------------------------------- > > >On 5/7/18, 8:42 PM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of George Kirikos" ><gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org on behalf of icann(a)leap.com> wrote: > >>Hi folks, >> >>Since there's been no response to the call for the true numbers to be >>posted: >> >>https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001140.html >> >>let's attempt to do this transparently. I believe we might already >>have a consensus. >> >>The 6 options (not mutually exclusive!) were at: >> >>https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-March/001093.html >> >>Briefly: >> >>Option 1: set aside the UDRP/URS decision, to put both sides back in >>the same position >> >>Option 2: use Option 1 for existing domain names, and Option 3 for >>newly created domains >> >>Option 3: arbitration >> >>Option 4: refer it to the RPM PDP >> >>Option 5: lock the domains in the event of an "in rem" lawsuit (not >>just "in personam") >> >>Option 6: mediation as a step, and then back to Option 1 if need be >> >>If you'd like to post your position/thoughts in an open and >>transparent manner, please do so in this thread, using the following >>template >> >>---------------------------------- >> >>Name: >>Option 1: >>Option 2: >>Option 3: >>Option 4: >>Option 5: >>Option 6: >> >>---------------------------------- >> >>For myself: >> >>Option 1: yes, I support this (ultimately my first choice) >> >>Option 2: yes, I can support this as a compromise >> >>Option 3: no, I can't support this >> >>Option 4: yes, I can support this; Paul Keating's prior suggestion of >>having Option 1 be the interim solution if Option 4 is >> >>Option 5: yes, I support this, and it works in parallel to all other >>options >> >>Option 6: yes, I support mediation >> >>Sincerely, >> >>George Kirikos >>416-588-0269 >>http://www.leap.com/ >>_______________________________________________ >>Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >>Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

1 0