I also support Option 4 Opt 1: I would support. Opt 2: I would support. Opt 3: I do not support. Opt 4: I support Opt 5: I would support. Opt 6: I would support. Sincerely, Jay Chapman On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:40 PM, Nat Cohen <ncohen@telepathy.com> wrote:

Dear WG Members,

I'll include a personal comment that our work here has been hampered by the lack of participation from the IGOs, on whose behalf this WG was formed. Despite all the work, time and effort that this WG has devoted over many years, we do not know whether any of the proposed options would actually address the root concerns of the IGOs. Indeed even if we adopted option 3, which would lead the WG down a long, tortured path to try to develop an arbitration system, if the IGOs maintain their resistance to participating, we would still be left not knowing whether the final recommendations would be deemed acceptable by the IGOs. It seems better to refer the core issues of jurisdiction and legal process to the RPM WG which enjoys more robust representation from a variety of stakeholders and will need to address these same issues as part of its work.

I support Option 4, and would also support continued exploration of Options 1, 2, 5, or 6, if one of those options attracted consensus support of the WG.

Regards,

Nat Cohen

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Zak Muscovitch <zak@muscovitch.com> wrote:

...

Dear WG members, I confirm that I support Option 4, which I had earlier proposed to the WG, and would also support Options 1, 2, 5, and 6.

Zak Muscovitch

-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: May-07-18 2:43 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Public Display of Possible Consensus

Hi folks,

Since there's been no response to the call for the true numbers to be posted:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001140.html

let's attempt to do this transparently. I believe we might already have a consensus.

The 6 options (not mutually exclusive!) were at:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-March/001093.html

Briefly:

Option 1: set aside the UDRP/URS decision, to put both sides back in the same position

Option 2: use Option 1 for existing domain names, and Option 3 for newly created domains

Option 3: arbitration

Option 4: refer it to the RPM PDP

Option 5: lock the domains in the event of an "in rem" lawsuit (not just "in personam")

Option 6: mediation as a step, and then back to Option 1 if need be

If you'd like to post your position/thoughts in an open and transparent manner, please do so in this thread, using the following template

----------------------------------

Name: Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Option 4: Option 5: Option 6:

----------------------------------

For myself:

Option 1: yes, I support this (ultimately my first choice)

Option 2: yes, I can support this as a compromise

Option 3: no, I can't support this

Option 4: yes, I can support this; Paul Keating's prior suggestion of having Option 1 be the interim solution if Option 4 is

Option 5: yes, I support this, and it works in parallel to all other options

Option 6: yes, I support mediation

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 _______________________________________________ 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

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 On 5/8/18, 2:36 PM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of Paul Keating" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Paul@law.es> wrote:

All (and Mary),

I have previously stated my position regarding these matters but am growing concerned that my vote has not been counted in the ensuing documentation that has been issued.

To be VERY clear please note my voting as to the options as follows:

----------------------------------

Name: PAUL KEATING Option 1: Yes Option 2: NO Option 3: NO Option 4: YES Option 5: NO Option 6: NO

Please note that my preference is for #1 (UDRP decision becomes void) BUT I also want to be counted for #4 (referral to RPM WG).

Thank you,

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

----------------------------------

On 5/7/18, 8:42 PM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:

...

Hi folks,

Since there's been no response to the call for the true numbers to be posted:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001140.html

let's attempt to do this transparently. I believe we might already have a consensus.

The 6 options (not mutually exclusive!) were at:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-March/001093.html

Briefly:

Option 1: set aside the UDRP/URS decision, to put both sides back in the same position

Option 2: use Option 1 for existing domain names, and Option 3 for newly created domains

Option 3: arbitration

Option 4: refer it to the RPM PDP

Option 5: lock the domains in the event of an "in rem" lawsuit (not just "in personam")

Option 6: mediation as a step, and then back to Option 1 if need be

If you'd like to post your position/thoughts in an open and transparent manner, please do so in this thread, using the following template

----------------------------------

Name: Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Option 4: Option 5: Option 6:

----------------------------------

For myself:

Option 1: yes, I support this (ultimately my first choice)

Option 2: yes, I can support this as a compromise

Option 3: no, I can't support this

Option 4: yes, I can support this; Paul Keating's prior suggestion of having Option 1 be the interim solution if Option 4 is

Option 5: yes, I support this, and it works in parallel to all other options

Option 6: yes, I support mediation

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

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

I am also in favor of option 4. Jim James L. Bikoff | Attorney at Law 202-263-4341 Phone 202-263-4329 Fax www.sgrlaw.com jbikoff@sgrlaw.com 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007 Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of David W. Maher Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2018 1:57 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Public Display of Possible Consensus CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Do not click links or attachments unless it's from a verified sender. ________________________________ My preferences are as follows: Option 1: Yes Option 2: No Option 3: No Option 4: Yes Option 5: No Option 6: No In general, I agree with Paul Keating's reasoning, with the minor exception that I would prefer Option 4 over Option 1 because Option 4 gives the IGOs an opportunity to have their voice heard. David Maher David W. Maher Public Interest Registry Senior Vice-President - Law & Policy +1 312 375 4849 -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2018 8:18 AM To: Paul Keating <Paul@law.es>; George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Public Display of Possible Consensus Importance: High 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 On 5/8/18, 2:36 PM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of Paul Keating" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Paul@law.es> wrote:

All (and Mary),

I have previously stated my position regarding these matters but am growing concerned that my vote has not been counted in the ensuing documentation that has been issued.

To be VERY clear please note my voting as to the options as follows:

----------------------------------

Name: PAUL KEATING Option 1: Yes Option 2: NO Option 3: NO Option 4: YES Option 5: NO Option 6: NO

Please note that my preference is for #1 (UDRP decision becomes void) BUT I also want to be counted for #4 (referral to RPM WG).

Thank you,

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

----------------------------------

On 5/7/18, 8:42 PM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:

...

Hi folks,

Since there's been no response to the call for the true numbers to be posted:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001140.html

let's attempt to do this transparently. I believe we might already have a consensus.

The 6 options (not mutually exclusive!) were at:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-March/001093.htm l

Briefly:

Option 1: set aside the UDRP/URS decision, to put both sides back in the same position

Option 2: use Option 1 for existing domain names, and Option 3 for newly created domains

Option 3: arbitration

Option 4: refer it to the RPM PDP

Option 5: lock the domains in the event of an "in rem" lawsuit (not just "in personam")

Option 6: mediation as a step, and then back to Option 1 if need be

If you'd like to post your position/thoughts in an open and transparent manner, please do so in this thread, using the following template

----------------------------------

Name: Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Option 4: Option 5: Option 6:

----------------------------------

For myself:

Option 1: yes, I support this (ultimately my first choice)

Option 2: yes, I can support this as a compromise

Option 3: no, I can't support this

Option 4: yes, I can support this; Paul Keating's prior suggestion of having Option 1 be the interim solution if Option 4 is

Option 5: yes, I support this, and it works in parallel to all other options

Option 6: yes, I support mediation

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

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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.

No on others. James L. Bikoff | Attorney at Law 202-263-4341 Phone 202-263-4329 Fax www.sgrlaw.com jbikoff@sgrlaw.com 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007 Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP -----Original Message----- From: George Kirikos [mailto:icann@leap.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2018 2:20 PM To: Bikoff, James; gnso-igo-ingo-. Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Public Display of Possible Consensus Thanks for posting, James. Just for completeness, do you have a position (for/against) the other 5 options? I plan to make a table at some point, to summarize things, and don't want to have empty spaces. It could be yes/no/maybe/unsure, etc. Sincerely, George On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Bikoff, James <jbikoff@sgrlaw.com> wrote:

I am also in favor of option 4.

Jim

James L. Bikoff | Attorney at Law

202-263-4341 Phone 202-263-4329 Fax www.sgrlaw.com jbikoff@sgrlaw.com

1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007

Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP

-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of David W. Maher Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2018 1:57 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Public Display of Possible Consensus

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

My preferences are as follows: Option 1: Yes Option 2: No Option 3: No Option 4: Yes Option 5: No Option 6: No

In general, I agree with Paul Keating's reasoning, with the minor exception that I would prefer Option 4 over Option 1 because Option 4 gives the IGOs an opportunity to have their voice heard. David Maher

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

-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2018 8:18 AM To: Paul Keating <Paul@law.es>; George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Public Display of Possible Consensus Importance: High

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

On 5/8/18, 2:36 PM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of Paul Keating" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Paul@law.es> wrote:

...

All (and Mary),

I have previously stated my position regarding these matters but am growing concerned that my vote has not been counted in the ensuing documentation that has been issued.

To be VERY clear please note my voting as to the options as follows:

----------------------------------

Name: PAUL KEATING Option 1: Yes Option 2: NO Option 3: NO Option 4: YES Option 5: NO Option 6: NO

Please note that my preference is for #1 (UDRP decision becomes void) BUT I also want to be counted for #4 (referral to RPM WG).

Thank you,

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

----------------------------------

On 5/7/18, 8:42 PM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:

...

Hi folks,

Since there's been no response to the call for the true numbers to be posted:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001140.html

let's attempt to do this transparently. I believe we might already have a consensus.

The 6 options (not mutually exclusive!) were at:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-March/001093.ht m l

Briefly:

Option 1: set aside the UDRP/URS decision, to put both sides back in the same position

Option 2: use Option 1 for existing domain names, and Option 3 for newly created domains

Option 3: arbitration

Option 4: refer it to the RPM PDP

Option 5: lock the domains in the event of an "in rem" lawsuit (not just "in personam")

Option 6: mediation as a step, and then back to Option 1 if need be

If you'd like to post your position/thoughts in an open and transparent manner, please do so in this thread, using the following template

----------------------------------

Name: Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Option 4: Option 5: Option 6:

----------------------------------

For myself:

Option 1: yes, I support this (ultimately my first choice)

Option 2: yes, I can support this as a compromise

Option 3: no, I can't support this

Option 4: yes, I can support this; Paul Keating's prior suggestion of having Option 1 be the interim solution if Option 4 is

Option 5: yes, I support this, and it works in parallel to all other options

Option 6: yes, I support mediation

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

_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.

I am in favor of Option 4, but would be ok with Option 1. Opposed to all the other options. Thanks, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Bikoff, James <jbikoff@sgrlaw.com> wrote:

I am also in favor of option 4.

Jim

James L. Bikoff | Attorney at Law

202-263-4341 Phone 202-263-4329 Fax www.sgrlaw.com jbikoff@sgrlaw.com

1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007

Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP

-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of David W. Maher Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2018 1:57 PM To: gnso-igo-ingo-. Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Public Display of Possible Consensus

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

My preferences are as follows: Option 1: Yes Option 2: No Option 3: No Option 4: Yes Option 5: No Option 6: No

In general, I agree with Paul Keating's reasoning, with the minor exception that I would prefer Option 4 over Option 1 because Option 4 gives the IGOs an opportunity to have their voice heard. David Maher

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

-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2018 8:18 AM To: Paul Keating <Paul@law.es>; George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Public Display of Possible Consensus Importance: High

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

On 5/8/18, 2:36 PM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of Paul Keating" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Paul@law.es> wrote:

...

All (and Mary),

I have previously stated my position regarding these matters but am growing concerned that my vote has not been counted in the ensuing documentation that has been issued.

To be VERY clear please note my voting as to the options as follows:

----------------------------------

Name: PAUL KEATING Option 1: Yes Option 2: NO Option 3: NO Option 4: YES Option 5: NO Option 6: NO

Please note that my preference is for #1 (UDRP decision becomes void) BUT I also want to be counted for #4 (referral to RPM WG).

Thank you,

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

----------------------------------

On 5/7/18, 8:42 PM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:

...

Hi folks,

Since there's been no response to the call for the true numbers to be posted:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001140.html

let's attempt to do this transparently. I believe we might already have a consensus.

The 6 options (not mutually exclusive!) were at:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-March/001093.htm l

Briefly:

Option 1: set aside the UDRP/URS decision, to put both sides back in the same position

Option 2: use Option 1 for existing domain names, and Option 3 for newly created domains

Option 3: arbitration

Option 4: refer it to the RPM PDP

Option 5: lock the domains in the event of an "in rem" lawsuit (not just "in personam")

Option 6: mediation as a step, and then back to Option 1 if need be

If you'd like to post your position/thoughts in an open and transparent manner, please do so in this thread, using the following template

----------------------------------

Name: Option 1: Option 2: Option 3: Option 4: Option 5: Option 6:

----------------------------------

For myself:

Option 1: yes, I support this (ultimately my first choice)

Option 2: yes, I can support this as a compromise

Option 3: no, I can't support this

Option 4: yes, I can support this; Paul Keating's prior suggestion of having Option 1 be the interim solution if Option 4 is

Option 5: yes, I support this, and it works in parallel to all other options

Option 6: yes, I support mediation

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

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