Proposed agenda for Working Group call on 14 September
Dear WG Members, Below, please find the proposed agenda for the Working Group call scheduled for 16:00 UTC on 14 September. Roll call/updates to SOI Review of Updated Recommendation 4 Options Diagram and Discussion of Questions Below: Should limitation of the court review or arbitration to disposition of the domain name require mutual agreement of the registrant and IGO, or should we recommend that limitation for one or both appeal forums? Should the registrant be permitted to choose to go directly to arbitration rather than judicial appeal if it wishes to? AOB For agenda item 2, please find an updated diagram, that is intended to take into account discussions from the previous WG 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/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/
Phil, as i am traveling i will put my thoughts here. I am opposed to the entire aspect of a separate arbitration process, unless it is open to all losing registrants as a post-udrp remedy. Assuming the option 4 is adopted, 2(a). If the respondent agrees to limit post UDRP litigation to possession/control of the domain name registration then the IGO should not be able to force arbitration and respondent should retain all current rights of litigation. 2(b). The registrant should always have the option of litigation/arbitration, before, after or during the UDRP. I see no reason to change the current process just because arbitration is now being discussed. Thank you, Paul Sent from my iPad
On 14 Sep 2017, at 02:22, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:
Dear WG Members,
Below, please find the proposed agenda for the Working Group call scheduled for 16:00 UTC on 14 September.
Roll call/updates to SOI Review of Updated Recommendation 4 Options Diagram and Discussion of Questions Below: Should limitation of the court review or arbitration to disposition of the domain name require mutual agreement of the registrant and IGO, or should we recommend that limitation for one or both appeal forums? Should the registrant be permitted to choose to go directly to arbitration rather than judicial appeal if it wishes to? AOB
For agenda item 2, please find an updated diagram, that is intended to take into account discussions from the previous WG 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/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/
<IGO INGO CRP v0.04 (1).pdf> _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
participants (2)
-
Paul Keating -
Steve Chan