Name: Reg Levy
Option 1: YES
Option 2: NO
Option 3: NO
Option 4: GRUDGINGLY YES IF NECESSARY
Option 5: NO
Option 6: NEEDS REFINEMENT BUT MIGHT WORK

Option 1 seems the most reasonable under the circumstances and the most fair to both parties to such a dispute.

If, for some reason, option 1 is absolutely untenable, I would grudgingly support option 4. I note, however, that, in order to not be seen as entirely buck-passing with regard to our remit, we ought rather to submit to the RPM WG a strong recommendation to proceed with option 1.

(Option 2 I find unacceptable because I don't find most recent registration date to be sufficiently determinative of an end user's intent to abrogate their rights. Option 3 would be far more elegant if there were simply an appeal process built into URS/UDRP but there isn't, since a losing party can appeal to local courts…except where an IGO is involved. Option 5 is acceptable but in light of the perfectly-reasonable option 4 as a poorer alternative to option 1, unnecessary. Option 6 might be acceptable but would require further refinement.)

Apologies for my brief absence from the list. My SOI has been updated.

Reg Levy
(310) 963-7135

Sent from my iPhone.