Recognizing that I am somewhat of a newcomer to the group, of the four Recommendations, I support Recommendation One. Regarding the various options for a possible Recommendation Five, I support Option One. While Option Four is tempting, I have concerns that kicking it to the RPM WG will result in additional, unjustified and lengthy delays to the finalization of this issue. Crystal Ondo VP, Corporate Affairs || Donuts Inc. +1.425.919.3563 From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Reg Levy <rlevy@tucows.com> Date: Friday, June 8, 2018 at 9:17 AM To: Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> Cc: <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Paul Keating's Concensus Votes All— I'd also like to reiterate my position regarding the options. My vote toward consensus is as follows: 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 My reasoning is: 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.) I am also vehemently opposed to any subsidization of any party's costs. I look forward to seeing how many votes each option received. Thanks, Reg -- Reg Levy Director of Compliance Tucows D: +1 (323) 880-0831 O: +1 (416) 535-0123 x1452 UTC -7 On 08 Jun 2018, at 04:51, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote: Petter and Mary, I have been unable to respond to prior emails this week. However, I wanted to reiterate my position regarding the various options. Below is my email of May 8, 2018. My response to #6 was subsequently modified to a Yes, Accordingly, please note my consensus votes as follows: Option 1: YES Option 2: NO Option 3: NO Option 4: YES Option 5: NO Option 6: YES In case I am unable to attend the upcoming call please note the above for the record. Thank you, Sincerely, Paul Raynor Keating, Esq. 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 From: Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> Date: Tue, May 8, 2018 at 9:17 AM Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Public Display of Possible Consensus To: Paul Keating <Paul@law.es>, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>, "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Having been asked by several people for my reasoning behind my votes, I thought I would simply post it openly. Option 1: Yes. This is a simple solution that returns the process to a balance. It leaves the IGO with the complete freedom of choice (just as it had in filing the UDRP). The consequence (voiding the UDRP) is a simple and easily understood consequence of seeking the benefit of immunity AND does not bog us down in discussions as to whether immunity existed or whether it had already been waived by the IGO via the UDRP filing. Option 2: NO. Although a nice attempt to seek compromise, I found it too confusing and feared it would lead to us becoming bogged down in discussion over details. Option 3: NO. I am most opposed to the idea of this WG attempting to create any form of alternative dispute system. This is more appropriately addressed by a wider and more fully functioning WG such as that addressing the RPM. Option 4: YES. I am fully in favor of suggesting that the other WG handle this matter. They are a larger group with more professionals on board. They are also experienced in tackling complex issues. I know this because I am a member of both this and the RPM WG. Option 5: NO. Issues of ³in rem² and declaratory relief are inherently common law principles and are not shared by many jurisdictions, including those based upon civil law (that which looks only to statutes and not to prior judicial decisions as the reference point). This would require too much discussion by this WG to achieve true consensus as to what is or is not involved in turning this option into the more robust descriptions necessary. Also, I have had no difficulty in dealing with post-UDRP claims based upon this distinction (suing a party or suing a thing). I also am unsure if a US in rem action would be permitted to continue in the absence of an IGO that successfully asserted sovereign immunity. So, overall, too complex for this WG given its directive. Option 6: NO. 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. Initiating such a program would not require any modification to to the UDRP as it could be entirely voluntary. HOWEVER, to the extent that this Option 6 would require discussion and consensus surrounding the rules underlying an obligatory mediation program, such is beyond the scope of this WG and not likely to have a successful outcome, particularly given what has been transpiring in this WG to date. So, there you have my thoughts. I ENCOURAGE all WG members to respond to George¹s email regardless of your views. 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 _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
