Option #1 Yes - As it is clearly the correct position given it is the IGOs who are initiating proceedings, to expect it to be otherwise would be diametrically opposed to the purpose of the mutual jurisdiction clause. I only support option #1 if option #6 is not tenable. Option #2 No - It just tries to mitigate some of the nonsense from option #3. Option #3 No – It is a ridiculously clumsy and theoretical attempted slight of hand and if it had been proposed by anyone other than the co-chairs there is no realistic way it would have ever gained traction. Option #4 Yes - Like Reg I only support #4 if it helps reach consensus and option #6 firstly or option #1 secondly are not tenable. Option #5 No - Like Option #2 doesn’t work for everyone. Option #6 Yes - This is the best option because it actually states the correct position in that after initiating proceedings the IGOs are never entitled to immunity. Sure they have rights if someone abuses their name but jurisdictional immunity isn’t ever one of them. But what sets option #6 apart is it says the working group can actually do something to help the IGOs and INGOs and thereby go some way to meeting GAC advice in providing a fast free way to settle 30% (based on Nominet’s experience) of all future IGO disputes in a consensual way that simply improves process to benefit all parties.