Hi folks, Just to followup on yesterday's call, I'd like time to be allocated on the agenda (next week, or whenever) to discussion of Option #3 (i.e. the limited waiver as opposed to general waiver of immunity, as put forth by Paul Keating in the past, as a way to addressing some of the fears of IGOs), as well as Option #4 which I sent to the mailing list several weeks ago: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-June/000769.html representing a hybrid approach, whereby existing domains (by creation date) are grandfathered under Option #1, "new" domains (by creation date) are handled under Option #2, and most importantly there'd be a mandatory review system in place to ensure that there are no unforeseen consequences to due process. That mandatory review guards against an outcome which was supposed to be used in rare circumstances (perhaps 1 or 2 cases per year) explodes in usage with outcomes that deviate from those of the court system. I'd be available to "take the lead" in discussing Option #4 on the next call or any other time this is scheduled (including discussion on the mailing list, if folks had questions to raise in written form). I don't know Paul Keating's schedule, but perhaps he could be consulted if he wants to take the lead on discussions of Option #3 during an upcoming call (although I'm familiar enough with its pros/cons to discuss it too, as I'm sure others are, since it's been an idea that been touched upon for a long time in this PDP, but not discussed deeply or formally at the group level. By the way, I don't see Option #3 as an "either/or" alternative to Option #1, #2, or #4 --- it's more a parallel option that can be added on to any of the other options. i.e. it's going back to the language of the UDRP itself and clarifying the precise nature of the waiver of immunity (which then might affect how a court handles the immunity question, should the UDRP outcome ever be challenged in the courts). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/