Dear Working Group members,

In light of the need for us to complete our work, in my role as the Chair, I ask you all to now focus on the task at hand, which is to finalize agreement on the appropriate consensus levels for each recommendation. In this regard, please note the following:

(1) I have put the most current, likely consensus levels here in this message and will appreciate further feedback;

(2) we need now also to focus on discussing where we want to end up in relation to Option 1 and Option 4, which may be mutually incompatible; and

(3) where you have made a suggestion on any specific point/topic but it has not received support, I ask that you consider filing a Minority Statement now rather than continue to argue the point.

On consensus levels, and based on our call earlier this week and the more recent list discussions:

Recommendation 1: Full Consensus (with additional text in the rationale about why this recommendation was phrased to cover INGOs, and noting that IGOs are covered by the remaining recommendations which nevertheless do not require changing the UDRP or URS beyond what may be necessary to effectuate those additional recommendations – I note that this last caveat may of course not be necessary if the group reaches consensus on Option 4 versus Option 1, as we are currently discussing).

Recommendation 2: Consensus (with slight amendment to the recommendation text to reflect “trademark or service mark rights” where we mention “unregistered” rights).

Recommendation 3: Consensus

Recommendation 4: Strong Support but Significant Opposition (with additional text in the rationale to note that several members are strongly against subsidies of any sort).

Recommendation 5/Options 1-6 (which we can renumber/title in the Final Report to avoid confusion):

Option 1 – Consensus or Strong Support but Significant Opposition

Option 2 – No Consensus/Divergence

Option 3 – Minority View (Consensus Against)

Option 4 – Consensus or Strong Support but Significant Opposition

Option 5 – No Consensus/Divergence

Option 6 – Strong Support but Significant Opposition

On reconciling Options 1 & 4:

If, from the above tentative consensus listing, the group agrees that either Option 1 or Option 4 has sufficient consensus (but not the other), there will not be a conflict. Please therefore weigh in with your thoughts on the current consensus levels for these two options. I have seen some informal notes from WG members that support both Option 1 and Option 4, clarifying that they prefer Option 1 before Option 4, but please make such statements/clarification again.

Similarly, if we end up with Strong Support but Significant Opposition for both, we can just transmit both to the Council without the need for further discussion (but possibly with text that can include implementation guidance for Option 1).

For Option 1 – this will require a change to the UDRP and URS, so if this is the final consensus position, staff will add draft text to the report with implementation guidance.

On Minority Statements:

1) As Susan suggested on the call, Paul Tattersfield may want to consider filing a Minority Statement in regard to the Swaine memo, as despite several emails on the topic over the last month or two and on the Working Group calls, there has not been much support to remove the memo from the report.

2) Similarly, those who support recommendations/options that end up as either No Consensus/Divergence or Minority View should consider preparing Minority Statements (as I believe Phil has already indicated he may do).

Thank you to all who are contributing to a productive discussion. I ask that we refrain from questioning others’ credibility or credentials, stop bringing up old threads and posts again, and focus on getting to the final consensus. We had a good, friendly and effective call this Tuesday – let us continue that way also online!

Best regards,

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@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