Hi James, Your correction is duly noticed. Best, Petter --  Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you 10 juni 2018 00:32:28 +02:00, skrev Bikoff, James <jbikoff@sgrlaw.com>:

Also I do not support any of the policy options except No. 4.

Jim

Sent from my iPhone

James L. Bikoff <http://www.sgrlaw.com/attorneys/bikoff-james/> |Attorney at Law

202-263-4341 phone 202-263-4329 fax <http://www.sgrlaw.com> <jbikoff@sgrlaw.com>

1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007 <http://www.sgrlaw.com> Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP

On Jun 9, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Bikoff, James <<jbikoff@sgrlaw.com>> wrote:

...

Petter, you left out my vote in support of the first recommendation.

Best,

Jim

Sent from my iPhone

James L. Bikoff <http://www.sgrlaw.com/attorneys/bikoff-james/> |Attorney at Law

202-263-4341 phone 202-263-4329 fax <http://www.sgrlaw.com> <jbikoff@sgrlaw.com>

1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007 <image0353d7.JPG> <http://www.sgrlaw.com> Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP

On Jun 9, 2018, at 6:01 PM, Petter Rindforth <<petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>> wrote:

...

CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Do not click links or attachments unless it's from a verified sender.

Dear All WG Members,

Thank you for participating in our formal consensus call.

I have studied your "votes" and comments, and made a summary at the attached document, to discuss further on Tuesday.

For your information, as informed in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines:

Full consensus:when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus.

Consensus:a position where only a small minority disagrees but most agree.

Strong support but significant opposition:a position where while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it.

Divergence:also referred to as No Consensus - a position where there isn't strong support for any particular position, but many different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless.

Minority View:refers to a proposal where a small number of people support the recommendation. This can happen in response to a Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, or can happen in cases where there is neither support nor opposition to a suggestion made by a small number of individuals

All the best, Petter

--  Petter Rindforth, LL M

<mime-attachment.jpg>

<mime-attachment.png>

Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> <http://www.fenixlegal.eu>

NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, <http://www.fenixlegal.eu> Thank you

5 juni 2018 19:02:40 +02:00, skrev Andrea Glandon <<andrea.glandon@icann.org>>:

...

Dear all,

The IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms meeting will take place on Tuesday,12 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC for90 minutes. 09:00 PDT, 12:00 EDT, 18:00 Paris CEST, 21:00 Karachi PKT, (Wednesday) 01:00 Tokyo JST, (Wednesday) 02:00 Melbourne AEST For other times:<https://tinyurl.com/y865xn8y>

Agenda Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/x/vCwFBQ> Web conference tool:Adobe Connect Please join the meeting room here:<https://participate.icann.org/crp>.If you’re having trouble joining, please check your plug ins:http://tinyurl.com/icannactest[tinyurl.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_icannactest&...> Instructions explaining how to connect the audio in the Adobe Connect room are attached. A calendar invitation has equally been sent and an ical (if your inbox doesn’t receive direct calendar invitations) is available here as attachment for you to download to your calendar.

If you require a dial-out or to send apologies (do not send to full working group) please send an email request with your preferred contact number to<gnso-secs@icann.org>

If you cannot join the Adobe Connect room, we recommend you connect to the Verizon audio bridge via telephone. Please see the Verizon dial in numbers and participant passcode below.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you. Kind regards,

Andrea ______________________________________________________________________

Participant passcode: IGO

Dial in numbers:

Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free NumberARGENTINA 0800-777-0519AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795BRAZIL RIO DE JANEIRO: 55-21-40421490 0800-7610651BRAZIL SAO PAULO: 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651CHILE 1230-020-2863CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474CROATIA 080-08-06-309CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324EGYPT 0800000-9029ESTONIA 800-011-1093FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368ISRAEL 1-80-9216162ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7878-2631 0066-33-132439JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-6868-2631 0066-33-132439LATVIA 8000-3185LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065PERU 0800-53713PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453POLAND 00-800-1212572PORTUGAL 351-2-10054705 8008-14052ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056TURKEY 00-800-151-0516UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702VIETNAM 120-11751

_______________________________________________ Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list <Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp>

<RESULT OF CONSENSUS CALL_9June2018.docx>

_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list

<Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>

<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp>

Confidentiality Notice This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.

P.S. An obvious error, for Recommendation #4. I'm listed as the only person against subsidies for IGOs. That's incorrect, given Reg was *vehemently* against that recommendation too: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001234.html "I am also vehemently opposed to any subsidization of any party's costs." Not only did she write that orally, she made that unequivocally clear on the phone calls. Go check the recordings/transcripts (or she might want to weigh in again). Anyhow, it's 7 pm on a Saturday night, and I have a life. Others can/should weigh in as they please, but this is another sloppy effort that needs to get fixed before it ever gets to GNSO Council. I'm sympathetic to the fact that Petter appears to have worked alone on this (although, I thought Susan and/or staff would have been part of the team assisting, given the section 3.7 appeal and her higher profile at this point as liaison, and perhaps the greater scrutiny that would be expected), and there's a time crunch. But, that time crunch wasn't imposed by me. Do we want to do things fast, or do we want to do it right? I want to stress that I'm not trying to change anyone's positions --- I just want to make sure we accurately capture everyone's positions/analysis and accurately capture the correct consensus designation levels. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:55 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:

Hi folks,

1) First off, it's entirely incorrect to call those the Results of the Consensus call. They're the initial designation levels of consensus, and are open to challenge and further revisions via the iterative process of Section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines. The initial designation levels are accompanied with a draft final report ---- we should be given the draft final report, too, to review, ASAP. *That's* what starts the true "Consensus Call" as per the working group guidelines, i.e. the Draft Final Report + the Initial Designation Levels.

2) Secondly, I noticed Jim Bikoff sent an email a few minutes ago which appeared to change his support? i.e. on June 5, 2018 he wrote:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001217.html

"On the six policy options for a possible Recommendation Five, I can support Option Four but only if Option One does not receive enough support."

but then a few minutes ago, he wrote:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001240.html

"Also I do not support any of the policy options except No. 4."

I don't understand what's going on there.

3) Thirdly, it's pretty obvious some of the results are misstated, e.g. my interpretation of Jim's June 5, 2018 email would have prioritized Option #1, but then Option #4 if there was no consensus for Option #1. [although, now today's email seems to change that]

When Reg wrote:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001234.html

I'd interpret it the same way, i.e. Option #1 first, then only #4 if necessary.

In other words, the way Petter's table has summarized things, it's "binary". Contrast this with the much more detailed analysis I did last time (this is based on the prior thread about public display of possible consensus, and hasn't been updated yet):

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001172.html https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQrdpthCvFIGoECeVWbAuz315diO...

where it's not binary. I plan to redo that kind of spreadsheet with the newer responses at some point.

The same goes for Recommendation #2 where only 4 folks' input is indicated, and thus it's showing "divergence"??!!?? i.e. I'm not against that recommendation --- I just want the language corrected. i.e. I'm against it as written, but only because staff has continually been imprecise. Furthermore, I think some people's silence on the issue isn't "dissent" -- it might actually be support (i.e. they might be relying on their past input on issues, and not just their most recent responses in the past 2 weeks).

Anyhow, this is a mess. I'll have more detailed thoughts and analysis later, but just wanted to put these out to get the discussion going.

This is *exactly* why we should have kept up with the weekly phone calls, by the way! This is entirely the kind of thing that could have been avoided, had the lines of communication been kept active. Now we have a truncated and artificial deadline to fix this all up, or be compelled to argue about "process" all over again (i.e. another Section 3.7 disputing the results, blah blah blah). Let's try to work hard and fix this mess, so we don't have to do that again.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> wrote:

...

Dear All WG Members,

Thank you for participating in our formal consensus call.

I have studied your "votes" and comments, and made a summary at the attached document, to discuss further on Tuesday.

For your information, as informed in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines:

Full consensus: when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus.

Consensus: a position where only a small minority disagrees but most agree.

Strong support but significant opposition: a position where while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it.

Divergence: also referred to as No Consensus - a position where there isn't strong support for any particular position, but many different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless.

Minority View: refers to a proposal where a small number of people support the recommendation. This can happen in response to a Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, or can happen in cases where there is neither support nor opposition to a suggestion made by a small number of individuals

All the best, Petter

-- Petter Rindforth, LL M

Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu

NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you

5 juni 2018 19:02:40 +02:00, skrev Andrea Glandon <andrea.glandon@icann.org>:

Dear all,

The IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms meeting will take place on Tuesday, 12 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

09:00 PDT, 12:00 EDT, 18:00 Paris CEST, 21:00 Karachi PKT, (Wednesday) 01:00 Tokyo JST, (Wednesday) 02:00 Melbourne AEST

For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y865xn8y

Agenda Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/vCwFBQ

Web conference tool: Adobe Connect

Please join the meeting room here: https://participate.icann.org/crp. If you’re having trouble joining, please check your plug ins: http://tinyurl.com/icannactest [tinyurl.com]

Instructions explaining how to connect the audio in the Adobe Connect room are attached. A calendar invitation has equally been sent and an ical (if your inbox doesn’t receive direct calendar invitations) is available here as attachment for you to download to your calendar.

If you require a dial-out or to send apologies (do not send to full working group) please send an email request with your preferred contact number to gnso-secs@icann.org

If you cannot join the Adobe Connect room, we recommend you connect to the Verizon audio bridge via telephone. Please see the Verizon dial in numbers and participant passcode below.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Andrea

______________________________________________________________________

Participant passcode: IGO

Dial in numbers:

Country

Toll Numbers

Freephone/ Toll Free Number

ARGENTINA

0800-777-0519

AUSTRALIA

ADELAIDE:

61-8-8121-4842

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA

BRISBANE:

61-7-3102-0944

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA

CANBERRA:

61-2-6100-1944

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA

MELBOURNE:

61-3-9010-7713

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA

PERTH:

61-8-9467-5223

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA

SYDNEY:

61-2-8205-8129

1-800-657-260

AUSTRIA

43-1-92-81-113

0800-005-259

BELGIUM

32-2-400-9861

0800-3-8795

BRAZIL

RIO DE JANEIRO:

55-21-40421490

0800-7610651

BRAZIL

SAO PAULO:

55-11-3958-0779

0800-7610651

CHILE

1230-020-2863

CHINA

CHINA A:

86-400-810-4789

10800-712-1670

CHINA

CHINA B:

86-400-810-4789

10800-120-1670

COLOMBIA

01800-9-156474

CROATIA

080-08-06-309

CZECH REPUBLIC

420-2-25-98-56-64

800-700-177

DENMARK

45-7014-0284

8088-8324

EGYPT

0800000-9029

ESTONIA

800-011-1093

FINLAND

358-9-5424-7162

0-800-9-14610

FRANCE

LYON:

33-4-26-69-12-85

080-511-1496

FRANCE

MARSEILLE:

33-4-86-06-00-85

080-511-1496

FRANCE

PARIS:

33-1-70-70-60-72

080-511-1496

GERMANY

49-69-2222-20362

0800-664-4247

GREECE

30-80-1-100-0687

00800-12-7312

HONG KONG

852-3001-3863

800-962-856

HUNGARY

36-1-700-8856

06-800-12755

INDIA

INDIA A:

000-800-852-1268

INDIA

INDIA B:

000-800-001-6305

INDIA

INDIA C:

1800-300-00491

INDONESIA

001-803-011-3982

IRELAND

353-1-246-7646

1800-992-368

ISRAEL

1-80-9216162

ITALY

MILAN:

39-02-3600-6007

800-986-383

ITALY

ROME:

39-06-8751-6018

800-986-383

ITALY

TORINO:

39-011-510-0118

800-986-383

JAPAN

OSAKA:

81-6-7878-2631

0066-33-132439

JAPAN

TOKYO:

81-3-6868-2631

0066-33-132439

LATVIA

8000-3185

LUXEMBOURG

352-27-000-1364

8002-9246

MALAYSIA

1-800-81-3065

MEXICO

GUADALAJARA (JAL):

52-33-3208-7310

001-866-376-9696

MEXICO

MEXICO CITY:

52-55-5062-9110

001-866-376-9696

MEXICO

MONTERREY:

52-81-2482-0610

001-866-376-9696

NETHERLANDS

31-20-718-8588

0800-023-4378

NEW ZEALAND

64-9-970-4771

0800-447-722

NORWAY

47-21-590-062

800-15157

PANAMA

011-001-800-5072065

PERU

0800-53713

PHILIPPINES

63-2-858-3716

1800-111-42453

POLAND

00-800-1212572

PORTUGAL

351-2-10054705

8008-14052

ROMANIA

40-31-630-01-79

RUSSIA

8-10-8002-0144011

SAUDI ARABIA

800-8-110087

SINGAPORE

65-6883-9230

800-120-4663

SLOVAK REPUBLIC

421-2-322-422-25

0800-002066

SOUTH AFRICA

080-09-80414

SOUTH KOREA

82-2-6744-1083

00798-14800-7352

SPAIN

34-91-414-25-33

800-300-053

SWEDEN

46-8-566-19-348

0200-884-622

SWITZERLAND

41-44-580-6398

0800-120-032

TAIWAN

886-2-2795-7379

00801-137-797

THAILAND

001-800-1206-66056

TURKEY

00-800-151-0516

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

8000-35702370

UNITED KINGDOM

BIRMINGHAM:

44-121-210-9025

0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM

GLASGOW:

44-141-202-3225

0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM

LEEDS:

44-113-301-2125

0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM

LONDON:

44-20-7108-6370

0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM

MANCHESTER:

44-161-601-1425

0808-238-6029

URUGUAY

000-413-598-3421

USA

1-517-345-9004

866-692-5726

VENEZUELA

0800-1-00-3702

VIETNAM

120-11751

_______________________________________________ Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-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

Hi Reg and All, The e-mail I sent was my personal try to initially collect and show the result, looking at the "yes" and "no" provided. Thereby we have an indication to further discuss on Tuesday. It is then also rather obvious that even if you have noted a "yes" on several options, one of them may be your preferred option, and the rest of the "yes" is only if that preferred one receives no majority. As you all now clearly can see: The problem when we expanded from the original 2 options (in our Initial Report of January 19, 2017) to 6 options, is to find a clear majority/support for one specific option. However, looking at the e-mail discussion, I am convinced that we can come to a workable conclusion on Tuesday, with a possible one option in a decent majority/consensus level and likely one or two others Minority View/s. It is indeed positive to see that we all still have such energy and willingness to co-operate with the goal to find a workable result in this last minute! All the best, Petter --  Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you 10 juni 2018 02:01:48 +02:00, skrev Reg Levy <rlevy@tucows.com>:

I agree that the collection of votes appears to indicate support where the emails I saw did not indicate support and consensus in some places where there should be divergence. Also, although some people only voted for (or against) certain options, most weighed in on all options, which doesn’t appear reflected in the report. I’ll try to do a summary in the morning of the “votes”.

Reg Levy (310) 963-7135

Sent from my iPhone.

...

On Jun 9, 2018, at 16:13, George Kirikos <<icann@leap.com>> wrote:

P.S. An obvious error, for Recommendation #4. I'm listed as the only person against subsidies for IGOs. That's incorrect, given Reg was *vehemently* against that recommendation too:

<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001234.html>

"I am also vehemently opposed to any subsidization of any party's costs."

Not only did she write that orally, she made that unequivocally clear on the phone calls. Go check the recordings/transcripts (or she might want to weigh in again).

Anyhow, it's 7 pm on a Saturday night, and I have a life. Others can/should weigh in as they please, but this is another sloppy effort that needs to get fixed before it ever gets to GNSO Council.

I'm sympathetic to the fact that Petter appears to have worked alone on this (although, I thought Susan and/or staff would have been part of the team assisting, given the section 3.7 appeal and her higher profile at this point as liaison, and perhaps the greater scrutiny that would be expected), and there's a time crunch. But, that time crunch wasn't imposed by me. Do we want to do things fast, or do we want to do it right?

I want to stress that I'm not trying to change anyone's positions --- I just want to make sure we accurately capture everyone's positions/analysis and accurately capture the correct consensus designation levels.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <http://www.leap.com/>

...

On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:55 PM, George Kirikos <<icann@leap.com>> wrote: Hi folks,

1) First off, it's entirely incorrect to call those the Results of the Consensus call. They're the initial designation levels of consensus, and are open to challenge and further revisions via the iterative process of Section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines. The initial designation levels are accompanied with a draft final report ---- we should be given the draft final report, too, to review, ASAP. *That's* what starts the true "Consensus Call" as per the working group guidelines, i.e. the Draft Final Report + the Initial Designation Levels.

2) Secondly, I noticed Jim Bikoff sent an email a few minutes ago which appeared to change his support? i.e. on June 5, 2018 he wrote:

<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001217.html>

"On the six policy options for a possible Recommendation Five, I can support Option Four but only if Option One does not receive enough support."

but then a few minutes ago, he wrote:

<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001240.html>

"Also I do not support any of the policy options except No. 4."

I don't understand what's going on there.

3) Thirdly, it's pretty obvious some of the results are misstated, e.g. my interpretation of Jim's June 5, 2018 email would have prioritized Option #1, but then Option #4 if there was no consensus for Option #1. [although, now today's email seems to change that]

When Reg wrote:

<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001234.html>

I'd interpret it the same way, i.e. Option #1 first, then only #4 if necessary.

In other words, the way Petter's table has summarized things, it's "binary". Contrast this with the much more detailed analysis I did last time (this is based on the prior thread about public display of possible consensus, and hasn't been updated yet):

<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001172.html> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQrdpthCvFIGoECeVWbAuz315diO...>

where it's not binary. I plan to redo that kind of spreadsheet with the newer responses at some point.

The same goes for Recommendation #2 where only 4 folks' input is indicated, and thus it's showing "divergence"??!!?? i.e. I'm not against that recommendation --- I just want the language corrected. i.e. I'm against it as written, but only because staff has continually been imprecise. Furthermore, I think some people's silence on the issue isn't "dissent" -- it might actually be support (i.e. they might be relying on their past input on issues, and not just their most recent responses in the past 2 weeks).

Anyhow, this is a mess. I'll have more detailed thoughts and analysis later, but just wanted to put these out to get the discussion going.

This is *exactly* why we should have kept up with the weekly phone calls, by the way! This is entirely the kind of thing that could have been avoided, had the lines of communication been kept active. Now we have a truncated and artificial deadline to fix this all up, or be compelled to argue about "process" all over again (i.e. another Section 3.7 disputing the results, blah blah blah). Let's try to work hard and fix this mess, so we don't have to do that again.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <http://www.leap.com/>

On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Petter Rindforth <<petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>> wrote:

...

Dear All WG Members,

Thank you for participating in our formal consensus call.

I have studied your "votes" and comments, and made a summary at the attached document, to discuss further on Tuesday.

For your information, as informed in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines:

Full consensus: when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus.

Consensus: a position where only a small minority disagrees but most agree.

Strong support but significant opposition: a position where while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not support it.

Divergence: also referred to as No Consensus - a position where there isn't strong support for any particular position, but many different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that it is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless.

Minority View: refers to a proposal where a small number of people support the recommendation. This can happen in response to a Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus, or can happen in cases where there is neither support nor opposition to a suggestion made by a small number of individuals

All the best, Petter

-- Petter Rindforth, LL M

Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> <http://www.fenixlegal.eu>

NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, <http://www.fenixlegal.eu> Thank you

5 juni 2018 19:02:40 +02:00, skrev Andrea Glandon <<andrea.glandon@icann.org>>:

Dear all,

The IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms meeting will take place on Tuesday, 12 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

09:00 PDT, 12:00 EDT, 18:00 Paris CEST, 21:00 Karachi PKT, (Wednesday) 01:00 Tokyo JST, (Wednesday) 02:00 Melbourne AEST

For other times: <https://tinyurl.com/y865xn8y>

Agenda Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/x/vCwFBQ>

Web conference tool: Adobe Connect

Please join the meeting room here: <https://participate.icann.org/crp.> If you’re having trouble joining, please check your plug ins: <http://tinyurl.com/icannactest> [tinyurl.com]

Instructions explaining how to connect the audio in the Adobe Connect room are attached. A calendar invitation has equally been sent and an ical (if your inbox doesn’t receive direct calendar invitations) is available here as attachment for you to download to your calendar.

If you require a dial-out or to send apologies (do not send to full working group) please send an email request with your preferred contact number to <gnso-secs@icann.org>

If you cannot join the Adobe Connect room, we recommend you connect to the Verizon audio bridge via telephone. Please see the Verizon dial in numbers and participant passcode below.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Andrea

______________________________________________________________________

Participant passcode: IGO

Dial in numbers:

Country

Toll Numbers

Freephone/ Toll Free Number

ARGENTINA

0800-777-0519

AUSTRALIA

ADELAIDE:

61-8-8121-4842

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA

BRISBANE:

61-7-3102-0944

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA

CANBERRA:

61-2-6100-1944

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA

MELBOURNE:

61-3-9010-7713

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA

PERTH:

61-8-9467-5223

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA

SYDNEY:

61-2-8205-8129

1-800-657-260

AUSTRIA

43-1-92-81-113

0800-005-259

BELGIUM

32-2-400-9861

0800-3-8795

BRAZIL

RIO DE JANEIRO:

55-21-40421490

0800-7610651

BRAZIL

SAO PAULO:

55-11-3958-0779

0800-7610651

CHILE

1230-020-2863

CHINA

CHINA A:

86-400-810-4789

10800-712-1670

CHINA

CHINA B:

86-400-810-4789

10800-120-1670

COLOMBIA

01800-9-156474

CROATIA

080-08-06-309

CZECH REPUBLIC

420-2-25-98-56-64

800-700-177

DENMARK

45-7014-0284

8088-8324

EGYPT

0800000-9029

ESTONIA

800-011-1093

FINLAND

358-9-5424-7162

0-800-9-14610

FRANCE

LYON:

33-4-26-69-12-85

080-511-1496

FRANCE

MARSEILLE:

33-4-86-06-00-85

080-511-1496

FRANCE

PARIS:

33-1-70-70-60-72

080-511-1496

GERMANY

49-69-2222-20362

0800-664-4247

GREECE

30-80-1-100-0687

00800-12-7312

HONG KONG

852-3001-3863

800-962-856

HUNGARY

36-1-700-8856

06-800-12755

INDIA

INDIA A:

000-800-852-1268

INDIA

INDIA B:

000-800-001-6305

INDIA

INDIA C:

1800-300-00491

INDONESIA

001-803-011-3982

IRELAND

353-1-246-7646

1800-992-368

ISRAEL

1-80-9216162

ITALY

MILAN:

39-02-3600-6007

800-986-383

ITALY

ROME:

39-06-8751-6018

800-986-383

ITALY

TORINO:

39-011-510-0118

800-986-383

JAPAN

OSAKA:

81-6-7878-2631

0066-33-132439

JAPAN

TOKYO:

81-3-6868-2631

0066-33-132439

LATVIA

8000-3185

LUXEMBOURG

352-27-000-1364

8002-9246

MALAYSIA

1-800-81-3065

MEXICO

GUADALAJARA (JAL):

52-33-3208-7310

001-866-376-9696

MEXICO

MEXICO CITY:

52-55-5062-9110

001-866-376-9696

MEXICO

MONTERREY:

52-81-2482-0610

001-866-376-9696

NETHERLANDS

31-20-718-8588

0800-023-4378

NEW ZEALAND

64-9-970-4771

0800-447-722

NORWAY

47-21-590-062

800-15157

PANAMA

011-001-800-5072065

PERU

0800-53713

PHILIPPINES

63-2-858-3716

1800-111-42453

POLAND

00-800-1212572

PORTUGAL

351-2-10054705

8008-14052

ROMANIA

40-31-630-01-79

RUSSIA

8-10-8002-0144011

SAUDI ARABIA

800-8-110087

SINGAPORE

65-6883-9230

800-120-4663

SLOVAK REPUBLIC

421-2-322-422-25

0800-002066

SOUTH AFRICA

080-09-80414

SOUTH KOREA

82-2-6744-1083

00798-14800-7352

SPAIN

34-91-414-25-33

800-300-053

SWEDEN

46-8-566-19-348

0200-884-622

SWITZERLAND

41-44-580-6398

0800-120-032

TAIWAN

886-2-2795-7379

00801-137-797

THAILAND

001-800-1206-66056

TURKEY

00-800-151-0516

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

8000-35702370

UNITED KINGDOM

BIRMINGHAM:

44-121-210-9025

0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM

GLASGOW:

44-141-202-3225

0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM

LEEDS:

44-113-301-2125

0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM

LONDON:

44-20-7108-6370

0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM

MANCHESTER:

44-161-601-1425

0808-238-6029

URUGUAY

000-413-598-3421

USA

1-517-345-9004

866-692-5726

VENEZUELA

0800-1-00-3702

VIETNAM

120-11751

_______________________________________________ Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ntfy-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> _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp>

Thanks, David. I'll add it to that document. I'll wait closer to our meeting though, just to make sure that all WG members can check the list and notify of needed corrections related to their e-mailed positions. Best, Petter --  Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you 10 juni 2018 18:22:37 +02:00, skrev David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org>:

Petter: You did not record the positions that I emailed on May 26: I support the four recommendations. My support of recommendation 4 is reluctant; in principle I am not in favor of special treatment for any participant in a UDRP or URS proceeding. In this case, referral of the question to the IC ANN Board is an acceptable compromise that fulfills one of the group’s obligations under our charter. I support Option 1. I understand staff’s concern “that resolving a procedural question (immunity from jurisdiction) can automatically reverse a substantive panel finding, where the court has not had (and will not have) the opportunity to hear the case on its merits.” This problem will only arise if an IGO takes advantage of a UDRP or URS proceeding and then hides behind immunity. It appears from this group’s discussions that IGOs have had few or no problems in supporting their names and acronyms in court and administrative proceedings. For future proceedings, I believe it is justifiable to bar IGOs from invoking an intrinsically unfair legal maneuver. I do not support Options 2 and 3. I do not believe that the deliberations of this group have shown any need for a new procedure. I do not support Option 4. I initially supported this option, but, on reflection, I believe our report and recommendations (assuming that Options 2-6 are not supported) fulfill our obligations under our charter, and there is no need for a referral to another WG. I do not support Option 5. I have seen no evidence to support the need for a procedural rule that would have limited applicability in courts around the world. I do not support Option 6. Adding mediation to the UDRP procedures should be a question for the RPM WG. The second sentence of this option appears to duplicate Option 1.

David W. Maher Public Interest Registry Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy +1 312 375 4849

Your designation of my position on Option 2 of Recommendation 5 as Y is incorrect. My only Y is for Option 3, I am N on all the rest. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 5:34 PM To: Petter Rindforth LLM <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] [Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Our next meeting and Result of consensus Call: IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG meeting on Tuesday, 12 June 2018 16:00 UTC All— I had intended to knock this out on Sunday. After spending a few hours alone with your emails, I have renewed respect for the dizzying job of chair. Part of the issue is we are voting on five things and one of those five has six options. It is wildly unclear what the call was actually for—and thus, what many people voted for. (For example, I did not weigh in on the five options at all and only the six of the fifth. And if that sentence made sense to you, you're way ahead of me.) I am using the following as indicative of position: Maher https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001214.html Bikoff https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001217.html Novoa https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001218.html Kirikos https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001219.html Corwin https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001223.html Muscovitch https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001225.html Cohen https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001228.html Lerman https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001230.html Chapman https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001231.html Rindforth https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001232.html Keating https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001233.html Levy https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001234.html Ondo https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001236.html Tattersfield https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001237.html And, using that, came up with the following matrix: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Maher Y N N N N N Bikoff Y Y only if 1 has no support Novoa Y Kirikos Y N unless rephrased N N especially no subsidies Y Y Corwin N Y Y N N N Muscovitch maybe maybe maybe Y maybe maybe Cohen Y Y with changes Lerman Y Y N Y Y Y Chapman Y Y Y Y Y only in part Rindforth Y Y Y Y current version Y only in part Keating Y N N Y N Y Levy Y N N Y only if 1 has no support N not without changes Ondo Y 1 Tattersfield can live with not without changes can live with 1, 4, 6 (not 2, 3, 5) To me, this indicates clear support for Option 1 (with only one no). However, as you can see, I kind of lost the thread of it near the end as people noted five rather than six options and then sometimes voted on five and six. In any case, I think it is clear that we are confused and respectfully recommend that we set up a Doodle!! I recommend that each "option" be completely spelled out in the question (not, "What is your support for Option 1" but "Here is the entire text of Option 1; what is your level of support?"). I recommend that each answer be as follows: Support, Can Live With, Do Not Support, and Support With Changes [text field for changes], Do Not Support Without Changes [text field for changes]. This would allow (a) clarity!! which we are all clearly in need of; (b) black-and-white answers for those who wish to give them; and (c) options including grey area for those who wish to make changes. Best, Reg -- Reg Levy Director of Compliance Tucows D: +1 (323) 880-0831 O: +1 (416) 535-0123 x1452 UTC -7 On 10 Jun 2018, at 09:38, Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>> wrote: Thanks, David. I'll add it to that document. I'll wait closer to our meeting though, just to make sure that all WG members can check the list and notify of needed corrections related to their e-mailed positions. Best, Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M <Mail Attachment.jpeg> <Mail Attachment.png> Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> Thank you 10 juni 2018 18:22:37 +02:00, skrev David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org<mailto:dmaher@pir.org>>: Petter: You did not record the positions that I emailed on May 26: I support the four recommendations. My support of recommendation 4 is reluctant; in principle I am not in favor of special treatment for any participant in a UDRP or URS proceeding. In this case, referral of the question to the IC ANN Board is an acceptable compromise that fulfills one of the group’s obligations under our charter. I support Option 1. I understand staff’s concern “that resolving a procedural question (immunity from jurisdiction) can automatically reverse a substantive panel finding, where the court has not had (and will not have) the opportunity to hear the case on its merits.” This problem will only arise if an IGO takes advantage of a UDRP or URS proceeding and then hides behind immunity. It appears from this group’s discussions that IGOs have had few or no problems in supporting their names and acronyms in court and administrative proceedings. For future proceedings, I believe it is justifiable to bar IGOs from invoking an intrinsically unfair legal maneuver. I do not support Options 2 and 3. I do not believe that the deliberations of this group have shown any need for a new procedure. I do not support Option 4. I initially supported this option, but, on reflection, I believe our report and recommendations (assuming that Options 2-6 are not supported) fulfill our obligations under our charter, and there is no need for a referral to another WG. I do not support Option 5. I have seen no evidence to support the need for a procedural rule that would have limited applicability in courts around the world. I do not support Option 6. Adding mediation to the UDRP procedures should be a question for the RPM WG. The second sentence of this option appears to duplicate Option 1. David W. Maher Public Interest Registry Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy +1 312 375 4849 _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

My apologies, Jim, Philip!! I definitely did not intend to misrepresent your votes. It does, however, underscore, for me at least, the fact that we should be doing this—even informally—via a Doodle that makes it absolutely clear (a) what is being voted upon and (b) what the results are. Mary's clarification regarding the informality of this is instructive but it's clear that the responses were chaotic at best. I am sorry for having missed the meeting just now, I had a conflict. I hope that it was productive and look forward to the summary of the meeting. Best, Reg -- Reg Levy Director of Compliance Tucows D: +1 (323) 880-0831 O: +1 (416) 535-0123 x1452 UTC -7

On 11 Jun 2018, at 22:21, Bikoff, James <jbikoff@sgrlaw.com> wrote:

Reg, I do not support Option 3.

Jim

Sent from my iPad

James L. Bikoff <http://www.sgrlaw.com/attorneys/bikoff-james/> | Attorney at Law

202-263-4341 phone 202-263-4329 fax www.sgrlaw.com <http://www.sgrlaw.com/> jbikoff@sgrlaw.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgrlaw.com> 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007

<image63e638.JPG> <http://www.sgrlaw.com/> Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP On Jun 12, 2018, at 4:06 AM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> wrote:

...

CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Do not click links or attachments unless it's from a verified sender. Your designation of my position on Option 2 of Recommendation 5 as Y is incorrect. My only Y is for Option 3, I am N on all the rest. <>

Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Reg Levy Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 5:34 PM To: Petter Rindforth LLM <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu <mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] [Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Our next meeting and Result of consensus Call: IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG meeting on Tuesday, 12 June 2018 16:00 UTC

All—

I had intended to knock this out on Sunday. After spending a few hours alone with your emails, I have renewed respect for the dizzying job of chair.

Part of the issue is we are voting on five things and one of those five has six options. It is wildly unclear what the call was actually for—and thus, what many people voted for. (For example, I did not weigh in on the five options at all and only the six of the fifth. And if that sentence made sense to you, you're way ahead of me.)

I am using the following as indicative of position:

Maher https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001214.html <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001214.html> Bikoff https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001217.html <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001217.html> Novoa https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001218.html <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001218.html> Kirikos https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001219.html <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001219.html> Corwin https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001223.html <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001223.html> Muscovitch https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001225.html <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001225.html> Cohen https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001228.html <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001228.html> Lerman https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001230.html <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001230.html> Chapman https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001231.html <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001231.html> Rindforth https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001232.html <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001232.html> Keating https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001233.html <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001233.html> Levy https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001234.html <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001234.html> Ondo https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001236.html <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001236.html> Tattersfield https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001237.html <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001237.html>

And, using that, came up with the following matrix:

1 2 3 4 5 6 Maher Y N N N N N Bikoff Y Y only if 1 has no support Novoa Y Kirikos Y N unless rephrased N N especially no subsidies Y Y Corwin N Y Y N N N Muscovitch maybe maybe maybe Y maybe maybe Cohen Y Y with changes Lerman Y Y N Y Y Y Chapman Y Y Y Y Y only in part Rindforth Y Y Y Y current version Y only in part Keating Y N N Y N Y Levy Y N N Y only if 1 has no support N not without changes Ondo Y 1 Tattersfield can live with not without changes can live with 1, 4, 6 (not 2, 3, 5)

To me, this indicates clear support for Option 1 (with only one no). However, as you can see, I kind of lost the thread of it near the end as people noted five rather than six options and then sometimes voted on five and six.

In any case, I think it is clear that we are confused and respectfully recommend that we set up a Doodle!!

I recommend that each "option" be completely spelled out in the question (not, "What is your support for Option 1" but "Here is the entire text of Option 1; what is your level of support?").

I recommend that each answer be as follows: Support, Can Live With, Do Not Support, and Support With Changes [text field for changes], Do Not Support Without Changes [text field for changes].

This would allow (a) clarity!! which we are all clearly in need of; (b) black-and-white answers for those who wish to give them; and (c) options including grey area for those who wish to make changes.

Best, Reg

-- Reg Levy Director of Compliance Tucows

D: +1 (323) 880-0831 O: +1 (416) 535-0123 x1452

UTC -7

On 10 Jun 2018, at 09:38, Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu <mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>> wrote:

Thanks, David.

I'll add it to that document.

I'll wait closer to our meeting though, just to make sure that all WG members can check the list and notify of needed corrections related to their e-mailed positions.

Best, Petter

-- Petter Rindforth, LL M

<Mail Attachment.jpeg>

<Mail Attachment.png>

Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu <mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.fenixlegal.eu <http://www.fenixlegal.eu/>

NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu <http://www.fenixlegal.eu/> Thank you

10 juni 2018 18:22:37 +02:00, skrev David W. Maher <dmaher@pir.org <mailto:dmaher@pir.org>>: Petter:

You did not record the positions that I emailed on May 26:

I support the four recommendations. My support of recommendation 4 is reluctant; in principle I am not in favor of special treatment for any participant in a UDRP or URS proceeding. In this case, referral of the question to the IC ANN Board is an acceptable compromise that fulfills one of the group’s obligations under our charter.

I support Option 1. I understand staff’s concern “that resolving a procedural question (immunity from jurisdiction) can automatically reverse a substantive panel finding, where the court has not had (and will not have) the opportunity to hear the case on its merits.” This problem will only arise if an IGO takes advantage of a UDRP or URS proceeding and then hides behind immunity. It appears from this group’s discussions that IGOs have had few or no problems in supporting their names and acronyms in court and administrative proceedings. For future proceedings, I believe it is justifiable to bar IGOs from invoking an intrinsically unfair legal maneuver.

I do not support Options 2 and 3. I do not believe that the deliberations of this group have shown any need for a new procedure.

I do not support Option 4. I initially supported this option, but, on reflection, I believe our report and recommendations (assuming that Options 2-6 are not supported) fulfill our obligations under our charter, and there is no need for a referral to another WG.

I do not support Option 5. I have seen no evidence to support the need for a procedural rule that would have limited applicability in courts around the world.

I do not support Option 6. Adding mediation to the UDRP procedures should be a question for the RPM WG. The second sentence of this option appears to duplicate Option 1.

David W. Maher

Public Interest Registry

Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy

+1 312 375 4849

_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp>

_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp>

Confidentiality Notice This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.