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

[George Kirikos]

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
> 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.

It's not "my" Option #3 --- as I noted, the idea of a limited waiver
came from Paul Keating.

> 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

It's not a "complex" set of rules at all, treating domains differently
by creation date, or other criteria. e.g. ICANN has different rules
for registrars depending on which version of the RAA they've signed.
ICANN has different rules for registries (e.g. .com with price
controls, vs. new gTLDs without them).

But, the "killer" precedent is that another IGO policy implementation
(proposed, the one whose comment period recently conclude) has the
EXACT SAME DIFFERENTIATION! See:

https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-protection-2017-05-17-en

Section 4.2 -- Existing Registrations in gTLDs

where there's grandfathering, going by creation date. I made it clear
that the treatment of domain names transferred after the effective
date would be handled in the exact same manner (i.e. one goes by
creation date, not having to look at anything else).

Sincerely,

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