All (and Mary) I would like to modify my voting as to Option 6 to ³YES². My vote(for the purpose of the consensus conversation should thus be modified to the following: ---------------------------------- Name: PAUL KEATING Option 1: YES Option 2: NO Option 3: NO Option 4: YES Option 5: NO Option 6: YES As to the modification, when voting initially, I had not considered that this WG would only be making the suggestion that mediation programs be adopted BUT that the actual drafting of any language required to implement would be conducted by subsequent working groups, (i.e. that referenced in #4). As I have said during previous calls and in previous emails, I STRONGLY favor any form of mediation and have previously provided my thoughts and concerns over the Nominet program. I ENCOURAGE Brian and anyone else (at either WIPO or NAF) to initiate such a program. Thus, I favor a recommendation by this WG that such a process be undertaken. And, if the subsequent WG do not adopted language for inclusion within the UDRP or URS, no ADR would be precluded from initiating such a program on a voluntary basis. Paul Keating On 5/8/18, 2:36 PM, "Paul Keating" <Paul@law.es> wrote:
All (and Mary),
I have previously stated my position regarding these matters but am growing concerned that my vote has not been counted in the ensuing documentation that has been issued.
To be VERY clear please note my voting as to the options as follows:
----------------------------------
Name: PAUL KEATING Option 1: Yes Option 2: NO Option 3: NO Option 4: YES Option 5: NO Option 6: NO
Please note that my preference is for #1 (UDRP decision becomes void) BUT I also want to be counted for #4 (referral to RPM WG).
Thank you,
Sincerely,
Paul Raynor Keating, Esq.
Law.es <http://law.es/>
Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain)
Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK) Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US)
Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810
Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450
Skype: Prk-Spain
email: Paul@law.es
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS.
Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein.
NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE
----------------------------------
On 5/7/18, 8:42 PM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
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