Dear WG Members, Please find the updated document, taking into account the recent email exchange between George and Phil. Note, the proposed agenda for the upcoming call is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Update on outreach to WG members 3. Discussion of amended co-chairs proposal for WG consideration (attached) - continued 4. AOB Best, Steve On 10/4/17, 6:40 AM, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Phil Corwin" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote: George: You are correct, and I hereby offer a Mea Culpa for that incorrect sentence, which I authored. It was a mistake on my part rather than any attempt to mislead the WG. My personal view remains that Option A would be DOA upon arrival at the GNSO Council, and that Option B would suffer the same fate because it adopts Option A for all grandfathered domains. The bigger problem is that such rejection might bring down the entire Final Report. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 6:39 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Co-Chairs' proposal for Working Group consideration - UPDATED In my email last week: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-September/000849.html I pointed out various flaws in the "Preliminary Notes" section: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-September/000849.html e.g. in relation to Option B, it was asserted: "They also observe that it would leave registrants of grandfathered domains without any arbitral appeal option in the event that an IGO successfully invoked judicial process immunity." which is obviously incorrect, because in that scenario "Option A" would apply, and there would not be any need for the registrants to seek arbitration, given the UDRP decision would be vitiated. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote: > Dear WG Members, > > > > Taking into account the WG members’ conversations on the 28 September > WG meeting, staff has updated the “Options Proposal for WG Discussion” > document for continued discussion on the upcoming 5 October meeting. > It is anticipated that the conversation will return to Option B and > then continue to then discuss Option C. > > > > Please do let us know if anything might require adjustment prior to > the WG’s next meeting. > > > > Best, > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steven Chan > > Policy Director, GNSO Support > > > > ICANN > > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > > Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > > steve.chan@icann.org > > mobile: +1.310.339.4410 > > office tel: +1.310.301.5800 > > office fax: +1.310.823.8649 > > > > Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and > visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. > > > > Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGNS... > > Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icanng... > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_&d=DwI... > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp