Dear George,

Too much detail and irrelevant complexity (as with Swaine) just allows those with an ulterior motive to hide bad things.The final report is easy and much more than a few pages page shouldn’t really be required.

Executive Summary
The IGOs are never entitled to jurisdictional immunity after initiating proceedings and UDRP is not the right process for dealing with the cited harms.

Introduction
The introduction should set out a very simple reasoning on the core issues such as:

The IGOs have defensible rights
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-July/000778.html

The IGO’s rights do not extend to jurisdictional immunity after initiating proceedings
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001136.html and given the expense and time involved in its preparation a brief explanation is warranted as to why the Swaine Memo is not relevant to the working group’s deliberations.

UDRP is not the correct tool for dealing with the harms the IGOs have asked for help with
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-October/000883.html #Practical considerations.

Conclusion
UDRP can never be the most effective way of dealing with the harms (domains with credit card fraud for fund raising campaigns for disaster relief etc.) the IGOs are looking to cure. Not only are the IGOs never entitled to jurisdictional immunity after initiating proceedings but equally importantly given the types of domains involved and the two months or so it takes to reach a successful determination UDRP is unlikely to ever be the best way to resolve such harms.

Recommendations
ICANN should advise the IGOs and INGOs to contact the registrars of any domains involved in the harms they are seeking address. The working group has found the overwhelming majority of registrars are willing to deal with such behaviour at no cost and in a timely manner. In the unlikely event that a registrar would not wish to help ICANN has contractual provisions in place to investigate the reasons for such a decision.

END

Wider improvements to the multistakeholder model

We could have improved things for IGOs we could have gone a long way to meeting GAC advice but those leading this working group chose for their own reasons not to even explore that route. The only other issue I can see of any value at this point is what can be learned from this mess.

The bigger issue is does ICANN want to prevent the ridiculous situation the co-chairs have been allowed to create from ever happening again? Part of me worries that either ICANN has no real motivation or perhaps no ability as it is currently constituted to correct the kind of behaviour we have just witnessed. If this the case then it is a far more serious matter than the simple directional failure of a single working group, rather it calls in to question the effectiveness of the whole multistakeholder model.

A first step I consider ICANN should remove the voting rights of all of those that hold the office of co-chair or chair on consensus matters. The co-chair and chair function should be purely administrative since the management of process affords them power that other working group members do not enjoy. It should never be possible for any one person to bring forward a proposal as ridiculous as option #3 and seriously expect it to be able to have it forced through using such sustained multiple abuses of process to the point where process itself collapses.

ICANN needs to look very carefully at the GNSO and what it is and is not achieving. The IGO immunity issue nonsense does not stand alone even amongst current issues.

GDPR /WHOIS is likely to be a looming disaster of ICANN’s own making, again like the IGO immunity issues GDPR can be very simply resolved
https://domainnamewire.com/2018/05/02/consensus-be-damned-heres-how-transfers-will-work-at-tucows-after-gdpr/ (#comment 4) yet it is likely ICANN is going to be responsible for creating another enormous mess.

UDRP was incredibly well drafted and steps must be taken to ensure that the RPM working group is not led to a similar disaster. It is ironic that those who were leading chorus to change UDRP have not been able to demonstrate they have neither the ability nor the humility to actually improve on what is already there.

Yours sincerely,

Paul

On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 1:23 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:

Hi folks,

Seventeen days ago, on the April 19th call, I pointed out that the
input was miscounted (among other things), and Susan specifically
stated that:

"We will check on a number of people that provided input and correct
that in the report."

[bottom of page 17 of the transcript at:

https://community.icann.org/x/wAEFBQ

https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/84214208/transcript%20IGO%20INGO%20CRP%2019April.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1524230243000&api=v2
]

Why has this not been done yet? This is only a count of 9 vs 10
people, and shouldn't take more than a few minutes, and certainly not
more than 2 weeks (and counting).

This was also but one of the issues I raised in the previous email to
the mailing list:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001139.html

in the attached PDF, and hasn't been addressed.

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