[council] FW: Consideration of options for Curative Rights

Sun Oct 21 15:34:35 UTC 2018

Makes sense to me. But the question is if the GAC would be satisfied.

Carlos

On October 21, 2018 5:30:24 PM GMT+02:00, "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady at winston.com> wrote:
>Fellow Councilors,
>
>Please see Phil's email below.  It does raise the issue of whether or
>not we must refer Recommendation 5 to Phase 2 of the RPM PDP or whether
>we can just say "that is out of scope, so we are not advancing it" and
>just let it die where it is.  There is a certain amount of cleanliness
>in letting it die rather than breathing new life into it by sending it
>to Phase 2/RPM.
>
>Best,
>Paul
>
>
>
>From: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com>
>Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 9:52 AM
>To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com>
>Cc: kathy at kathykleiman.com; brian.beckham at wipo.int;
>julie.hedlund at icann.org; ariel.liang at icann.org; mary.wong at icann.org
>Subject: RE: [council] Consideration of options for Curative Rights
>Importance: High
>
>
>Paul:
>
>
>
>I would hope you would pass this PERSONAL comment along to Council.
>
>
>
>As a former co-chair of the IGP CRP WG I am excruciatingly aware of the
>complexities of the subject of IGO immunity, and sovereign immunity
>generally, in relationship to the UDRP. I am therefore concerned that
>kicking this issue to the RPM WG would introduce a new, complex, and
>divisive matter that might significantly delay if not derail our Phase
>2 UDRP work. This could be for us what WT5 has become for SubPro, as
>GAC and IGO members will likely wish to participate.
>
>
>
>At  a minimum, WG members would need to review, discuss, and understand
>the 25-page legal memo prepared on the interrelationship of IGO
>immunity and the UDRP prepared by Prof. Edward Swaine for the IGO CRP
>WG.
>
>
>
>Therefore, I would ask that Council not act in haste and give extended
>consideration to these concerns before asking that the RPM WG
>re-litigate an issue that consumed four years for the IGO CRP WG (one
>of which, admittedly, was for preparation and publication of the Swaine
>memo). This issue involves a fundamental conflict between the right of
>a domain registrant to seek judicial review in a court of mutual
>jurisdiction, and the scope of an IGO's immunity from judicial process
>(which can vary between jurisdictions). There is no easy answer to this
>conflict, and no resolution possible at all absent some mutual degree
>of compromise.
>
>
>
>Thank you,
>
>Philip
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: council [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of
>McGrady, Paul D.
>Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 9:53 AM
>To: Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br<mailto:rubensk at nic.br>>; GNSO Council
>List <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] Consideration of options for Curative
>Rights
>
>
>
>Thanks Rubens.  I understand that while we haven't done that sort of
>thing before, there is nothing prohibiting it.  Seems like a sensible
>way forward to me...
>
>
>
>Best,
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>
>From: council
><council-bounces at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>>
>On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
>
>Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 8:42 AM
>
>To: GNSO Council List
><council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
>
>Subject: [council] Consideration of options for Curative Rights
>
>
>
>
>
>Fellow Council members,
>
>
>
>I wonder if it's an option for the Council to accept recommendations #1
>to #4 of the final report, and refer recommendation #5 to the RPM PDP,
>since there are concerns of that being or not in the WG charter / scope
>?
>
>
>
>
>
>Rubens
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If
>this message has been received in error, please delete it without
>reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any
>applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without
>the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email
>was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other
>taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>council mailing list
>
>council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcouncil&data=02%7C01%7CPMcGrady%40winston.com%7Cd22a9fc684d044bb11e808d63764c6ed%7C12a8aae45e2f4ad8adab9375a84aa3e5%7C0%7C0%7C636757303314697602&sdata=vnJOgXHvxyX71x6I7e4R%2BMx%2B3ednaJ0UdtY4atpnSBg%3D&reserved=0>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20181021/23da2443/attachment.html>