At the last call, I was asked to resubmit Option #6 for discussion. One can read the original proposal at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-July/000811.html Conceptually, it's very simple. While other options consider what to do if one gets into the "special situation" we've discussed at length, this option is different because it would reduce the number of those special situations, by attempting to avoid the special situation entirely. The domain name owner mitigates the problem by suing "in rem" against the domain name itself, where the IGO isn't a named defendant and thus can't assert immunity at all. Option #6 simply modifies 4(k) of the policy, which currently requires that the registrar should lock the domain name if a case is brought against the UDRP complainant (i.e. "in personam"), to lock the domain name if any case is brought concerning the domain name dispute (in rem or in personam). The only effect of Option #6 is to require the locking in that situation (in rem suit) --- a domain name owner could already sue in rem if they wanted to, but it's uncertain whether or not a registrar would lock the domain name if they did so. Option #6 removes that uncertainty. This would actually be consistent with the first part of 4(k), which didn't specify that the case needed to be brought against the complainant, i.e it only said: "The mandatory administrative proceeding requirements set forth in Paragraph 4 shall not prevent either you or the complainant from submitting the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction for independent resolution before such mandatory administrative proceeding is commenced or after such proceeding is concluded." It was only later on that the language (sloppily, in my opinion) required it to be "in personam", not contemplating that one might submit the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction in another manner. Section 18 of the UDRP "Rules" at: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/udrp-rules-2015-03-11-en actually contemplate any type of dispute (could be in personam, could be in rem), using the phrase "any legal proceedings....in respect of a domain-name dispute". Thus, Option #6 is entirely consistent with the spirit and intent of the UDRP rules, and simply fixes language that was overly restrictive due to oversight by the drafters of the policy. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/