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