[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE COMPLETE SURVEY to detect consensus on Options A, B or C

[Mary Wong]

Dear Imran,

Without highlighting the merits and disadvantages or arguing for or against any specific options, since it will not be appropriate for staff to do so, staff confirms that your conclusion about Option A correctly reflects the understanding of the Working Group.

In short, applying Option A when the court case is dismissed because the IGO succeeds in claiming immunity from the court’s jurisdiction will mean that the original UDRP or URS decision will not be enforced – so the domain will remain with the registrant and not transferred to the IGO or canceled. This will mean a different rule applies to IGOs in this specific situation, compared to other situations where the court case is between a registrant and a non-IGO – in these other situations, where the court case is dismissed, the original UDRP and URS decision will stand and be enforced.

On your other question, please note that all the three options are independent of one another, so they cannot be combined in their current form. Thus, Option A and B cannot be read together as they are separate solutions.

The Working Group discussed the details and consequences of these options over various calls. There were actually more than three options under discussion, and what we now see as Options B and, especially, C went through significant discussion and (in the case of Option C) amendment. The Working Group also conducted an Impact Analysis of all the many options (you can see that Impact Analysis document here: https://community.icann.org/x/mwghB).

To gain a full understanding of all the many options and the various discussions over each of them, you would have to review the call recordings or transcripts from August and September. However, if you need a clear summary of what the final three options (A, B and C) are, you can review the materials that we sent out with the poll, i.e. the slides used for last week’s webinar and the final version of the Options Document: https://community.icann.org/x/64ZEB.

I hope this is helpful. The chairs and other Working Group members may wish to add their own comments.

Thanks and cheers
Mary

From: Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 10:32
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
Cc: Imran Ahmed Shah <imran at uisoc.org>
Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE COMPLETE SURVEY to detect consensus on Options A, B or C

Dear Mary Wong, and Dear All WG Members,

Thanks for the Survey and obtaining the opinion of all WG Members.

While responding to the Survey, I found that the question asked in the survey is not very much clear, especially when I read the phrase of Option A alone or Option A & Option B together.

However, Option C is well elaborated and reader can understand that what is being asked by him. May I ask to update the questions for ‘Option A’ and ‘Option B’ with some additional detail?

Secondly, in Option A, the final statement “….the decision rendered against the registrant in the predecessor UDRP or URS shall be vitiated (i.e. set aside.)”, needs to be elaborated further.

After consulting it further I reach on the following understanding:

Explaining that which of the UDRP decision will be set aside/erased/not given force?

Through a consultation, I learned that, this is the result of a success (of IGO) would be to set aside, which was the original UDRP decision.

And this reversal would permit the cybersquatting found by the panel to persist.

“The current rule is that if a registrant files a judicial appeal and the court case is subsequently dismissed for any reason, then the stay on enforcement for the original UDRP decision is lifted and the domain is transferred or extinguished. Option A would reverse that rule solely for IGOs.”

May I ask the Option A proponents to explain it further (if the above explanation is not sufficient), for my understanding and for other members of the WG?

Thanking you and Best Regards

Imran Ahmed Shah

________________________________
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 17 October 2017, 1:39
Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE COMPLETE SURVEY to detect consensus on Options A, B or C

Dear Working Group members,

At the direction of the co-chairs and with their approval, staff has prepared the following survey that we are asking all members to fill out by 1800 UTC on Monday 23 October. The purpose of the survey is to enable Phil and Petter to determine the level of preliminary consensus amongst all members for each of the three options under discussion, relating to the situation where a respondent has filed court proceedings against an IGO and the IGO has successfully claimed immunity in that court. As our open community session at ICANN60 will be devoted to a presentation and discussion of all our proposed final recommendations, it is important for Phil and Petter to know which option is the most preferred at this stage.


  *   Link to survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VCP8VKD[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_VCP8VKD&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=XlDw6NXew-dGJm1CBaKCEg0N5s3LUqvT9lz7Hxht3VI&s=H6q19e1CNoiytuVQufO-8LqxLdGvQGGyKK8hbr6AbbA&e=>


  *   Link to background materials: https://community.icann.org/x/64ZEB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_64ZEB&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=XlDw6NXew-dGJm1CBaKCEg0N5s3LUqvT9lz7Hxht3VI&s=0pFK-FFTZe5kgr4h54pA-uINz2h_t8qyTAEnDNVVPNc&e=> (you will find the slides used by Petter and Phil to present all the proposed final recommendations and options during the webinar last week, as well as the most current version of the Options A, B and C document, under Background Documents. Please be sure to review these to familiarize yourself with the full details of the three options).

Please note that this survey is not intended to be a formal vote, nor does it replace the mandatory consensus call that will take place on all the final recommendations prior to our submission of the Final Report to the GNSO Council. The co-chairs currently expect the Working Group to finalize all recommendations following community feedback at ICANN60.

Please raise any questions or concerns you may have to this mailing list before the survey closes on Monday 23 October.


Thanks and cheers
Mary
_______________________________________________
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/20171019/522e6cb3/attachment-0001.html>