In my email last week: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-September/000849.html I pointed out various flaws in the "Preliminary Notes" section: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-September/000849.html e.g. in relation to Option B, it was asserted: "They also observe that it would leave registrants of grandfathered domains without any arbitral appeal option in the event that an IGO successfully invoked judicial process immunity." which is obviously incorrect, because in that scenario "Option A" would apply, and there would not be any need for the registrants to seek arbitration, given the UDRP decision would be vitiated. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:
Dear WG Members,
Taking into account the WG members’ conversations on the 28 September WG meeting, staff has updated the “Options Proposal for WG Discussion” document for continued discussion on the upcoming 5 October meeting. It is anticipated that the conversation will return to Option B and then continue to then discuss Option C.
Please do let us know if anything might require adjustment prior to the WG’s next meeting.
Best,
Steve
Steven Chan
Policy Director, GNSO Support
ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
steve.chan@icann.org
mobile: +1.310.339.4410
office tel: +1.310.301.5800
office fax: +1.310.823.8649
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO
Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp