I also support Option 4 Opt 1: I would support. Opt 2: I would support. Opt 3: I do not support. Opt 4: I support Opt 5: I would support. Opt 6: I would support. Sincerely, Jay Chapman On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Nat Cohen <ncohen@telepathy.com> wrote:
Dear WG Members,
I'll include a personal comment that our work here has been hampered by the lack of participation from the IGOs, on whose behalf this WG was formed. Despite all the work, time and effort that this WG has devoted over many years, we do not know whether any of the proposed options would actually address the root concerns of the IGOs. Indeed even if we adopted option 3, which would lead the WG down a long, tortured path to try to develop an arbitration system, if the IGOs maintain their resistance to participating, we would still be left not knowing whether the final recommendations would be deemed acceptable by the IGOs. It seems better to refer the core issues of jurisdiction and legal process to the RPM WG which enjoys more robust representation from a variety of stakeholders and will need to address these same issues as part of its work.
I support Option 4, and would also support continued exploration of Options 1, 2, 5, or 6, if one of those options attracted consensus support of the WG.
Regards,
Nat Cohen
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com> wrote:
Dear WG members, I confirm that I support Option 4, which I had earlier proposed to the WG, and would also support Options 1, 2, 5, and 6.
Zak Muscovitch
-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: May-07-18 2:43 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Public Display of Possible Consensus
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@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