[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Allocation of time for Options #3 and #4 for next week's agenda

[Phil Corwin]

George;



Our draft agenda for this week's call does reserve time for you to present your proposals and have a WG discussion.



Some personal comments:



In regard to your option 3, which as I understand it would have IGOs enter into a recognition of mutual jurisdiction only in regard to domain transfer or extinguishment, but not in regard to other penalties (e.g., monetary damages) that might be available per the national law on which the appeal was based, I'd be interested in hearing whether a court would likely respect such limited waiver, especially if the domain registrant undertaking the appeal was seeking additional penalties provided for by the law.



As for option 4, which as I recall was a rather complex proposal to have one set of rules for existing domains and another for domains registered after the effective date of adoption of any policy proposals recommended by this group, I have significant concerns about it for the following reasons:

*         Any complex proposal tends to raise a host of additional issues (such as treatment of domains transferred or repurposed after the effective date)

*         Council and the ICANN Board may feel that we have not fulfilled our Charter mandate by proposing a solution that pertains only to future gTLD domains and not those presently registered

*         It may be based on a  view that we are proposing a change in treatment that adversely affects the rights of existing domain registrants, whereas my view is that the Option 2 we have been discussing would assure current registrants of a form of appeal that would be unavailable today



I look forward to a robust discussion of your proposals.



Best, Philip



Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/Cell



Twitter: @VlawDC



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





-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 10:17 AM
To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Allocation of time for Options #3 and #4 for next week's agenda



Hi folks,



Just to followup on yesterday's call, I'd like time to be allocated on the agenda (next week, or whenever) to discussion of Option #3 (i.e.

the limited waiver as opposed to general waiver of immunity, as put forth by Paul Keating in the past, as a way to addressing some of the fears of IGOs), as well as Option #4 which I sent to the mailing list several weeks ago:



http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-June/000769.html



representing a hybrid approach, whereby existing domains (by creation

date) are grandfathered under Option #1, "new" domains (by creation

date) are handled under Option #2, and most importantly there'd be a mandatory review system in place to ensure that there are no unforeseen consequences to due process. That mandatory review guards against an outcome which was supposed to be used in rare circumstances (perhaps 1 or 2 cases per year) explodes in usage with outcomes that deviate from those of the court system.



I'd be available to "take the lead" in discussing Option #4 on the next call or any other time this is scheduled (including discussion on the mailing list, if folks had questions to raise in written form).



I don't know Paul Keating's schedule, but perhaps he could be consulted if he wants to take the lead on discussions of Option #3 during an upcoming call (although I'm familiar enough with its pros/cons to discuss it too, as I'm sure others are, since it's been an idea that  been touched upon for a long time in this PDP, but not discussed deeply or formally at the group level. By the way, I don't see Option #3 as an "either/or" alternative to Option #1, #2, or #4

--- it's more a parallel option that can be added on to any of the other options. i.e. it's going back to the language of the UDRP itself and clarifying the precise nature of the waiver of immunity (which then might affect how a court handles the immunity question, should the UDRP outcome ever be challenged in the courts).



Sincerely,



George Kirikos

416-588-0269

http://www.leap.com/

_______________________________________________

Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list

Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20170719/2a90519f/attachment.html>