[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Co-Chairs' proposal for Working Group consideration - UPDATED

[Phil Corwin]

George:

You are correct, and I hereby offer a Mea Culpa for that incorrect sentence, which I authored. It was a mistake on my part rather than any attempt to mislead the WG.

My personal view remains that Option A would be DOA upon arrival at the GNSO Council, and that Option B would suffer the same fate because it adopts Option A for all grandfathered domains. The bigger problem is that such rejection might bring down the entire Final Report.

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: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 6:39 AM
To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Co-Chairs' proposal for Working Group consideration - UPDATED

In my email last week:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-September/000849.html

I pointed out various flaws in the "Preliminary Notes" section:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-September/000849.html

e.g. in relation to Option B, it was asserted:

"They also observe that it would leave registrants of grandfathered domains without any arbitral appeal option in the event that an IGO successfully invoked judicial process immunity."

which is obviously incorrect, because in that scenario "Option A"
would apply, and there would not be any need for the registrants to seek arbitration, given the UDRP decision would be vitiated.

Sincerely,

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




On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org> wrote:
> Dear WG Members,
>
>
>
> Taking into account the WG members’ conversations on the 28 September 
> WG meeting, staff has updated the “Options Proposal for WG Discussion” 
> document for continued discussion on the upcoming 5 October meeting. 
> It is anticipated that the conversation will return to Option B and 
> then continue to then discuss Option C.
>
>
>
> Please do let us know if anything might require adjustment prior to 
> the WG’s next meeting.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Steven Chan
>
> Policy Director, GNSO Support
>
>
>
> ICANN
>
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
>
> Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
>
> steve.chan at icann.org
>
> mobile: +1.310.339.4410
>
> office tel: +1.310.301.5800
>
> office fax: +1.310.823.8649
>
>
>
> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and 
> visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.
>
>
>
> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO
>
> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp