Thanks George Look forward to tomorrow's discussion. Sent from my BlackBerry - the most secure mobile device From: icann@leap.com Sent: July 19, 2017 6:16 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Allocation of time for Options #3 and #4 for next week's agenda On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
In regard to your option 3, which as I understand it would have IGOs enter into a recognition of mutual jurisdiction only in regard to domain transfer or extinguishment, but not in regard to other penalties (e.g., monetary damages) that might be available per the national law on which the appeal was based, I'd be interested in hearing whether a court would likely respect such limited waiver, especially if the domain registrant undertaking the appeal was seeking additional penalties provided for by the law.
It's not "my" Option #3 --- as I noted, the idea of a limited waiver came from Paul Keating.
As for option 4, which as I recall was a rather complex proposal to have one set of rules for existing domains and another for domains registered after the effective date of adoption of any policy proposals recommended by this group, I have significant concerns about it for the following reasons:
· Any complex proposal tends to raise a host of additional issues (such as treatment of domains transferred or repurposed after the effective date)
· Council and the ICANN Board may feel that we have not fulfilled our Charter mandate by proposing a solution that pertains only to future gTLD domains and not those presently registered
· It may be based on a view that we are proposing a change in treatment that adversely affects the rights of existing domain registrants, whereas my view is that the Option 2 we have been discussing would assure current registrants of a form of appeal that would be unavailable today
It's not a "complex" set of rules at all, treating domains differently by creation date, or other criteria. e.g. ICANN has different rules for registrars depending on which version of the RAA they've signed. ICANN has different rules for registries (e.g. .com with price controls, vs. new gTLDs without them). But, the "killer" precedent is that another IGO policy implementation (proposed, the one whose comment period recently conclude) has the EXACT SAME DIFFERENTIATION! See: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-protection-2017-05-17-en Section 4.2 -- Existing Registrations in gTLDs where there's grandfathering, going by creation date. I made it clear that the treatment of domain names transferred after the effective date would be handled in the exact same manner (i.e. one goes by creation date, not having to look at anything else). 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