[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Public Display of Possible Consensus

Tue May 8 18:10:46 UTC 2018

Thanks to all who are contributing their valuable time towards a
workable solution.

My vote is as follows:

Option 1: Yes
Option 2: Yes
Option 3: No
Option 4: Yes
Option 5: Yes
Option 6: Yes

Please note that among all the Options, I favor Option 4 above the others.

Sincerely,
Alexander Lerman

On 05/08/2018 05:36 AM, Paul Keating wrote:
> All (and Mary),
> 
> I have previously stated my position regarding these matters but am
> growing concerned that my vote has not been counted in the ensuing
> documentation that has been issued.
> 
> To be VERY clear please note my voting as to the options as follows:
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------
> 
> Name:  PAUL KEATING
> Option 1:  Yes
> Option 2:  NO
> Option 3:  NO
> Option 4:  YES
> Option 5:  NO
> Option 6:  NO
> 
> Please note that my preference is for #1 (UDRP decision becomes void) BUT
> I also want to be counted for #4 (referral to RPM WG).
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Paul Raynor Keating, Esq.
> 
> Law.es <http://law.es/>
> 
> Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain)
> 
> Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK)
> Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US)
> 
> Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810
> 
> Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450
> 
> Skype: Prk-Spain
> 
> email:  Paul at law.es
> 
>  
> 
> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN
> INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE.  THE
> INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO
> WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED.  IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF
> PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO  PLEASE DELETE THE
> EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS.
> 
>  
> 
> Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department
> rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice
> contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or
> intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the
> purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any
> taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person
> in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person
> any transaction or matter addressed herein.
> 
>  
> 
> NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN
> ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS
> FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT,
> WHICH THIS IS NOT.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED
> HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------
> 
> 
> On 5/7/18, 8:42 PM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of George Kirikos"
> <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org on behalf of icann at leap.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Since there's been no response to the call for the true numbers to be
>> posted:
>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001140.html
>>
>> let's attempt to do this transparently. I believe we might already
>> have a consensus.
>>
>> The 6 options (not mutually exclusive!) were at:
>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-March/001093.html
>>
>> Briefly:
>>
>> Option 1: set aside the UDRP/URS decision, to put both sides back in
>> the same position
>>
>> Option 2: use Option 1 for existing domain names, and Option 3 for
>> newly created domains
>>
>> Option 3: arbitration
>>
>> Option 4: refer it to the RPM PDP
>>
>> Option 5: lock the domains in the event of an "in rem" lawsuit (not
>> just "in personam")
>>
>> Option 6: mediation as a step, and then back to Option 1 if need be
>>
>> If you'd like to post your position/thoughts in an open and
>> transparent manner, please do so in this thread, using the following
>> template
>>
>> ----------------------------------
>>
>> Name:
>> Option 1:
>> Option 2:
>> Option 3:
>> Option 4:
>> Option 5:
>> Option 6:
>>
>> ----------------------------------
>>
>> For myself:
>>
>> Option 1: yes, I support this (ultimately my first choice)
>>
>> Option 2: yes, I can support this as a compromise
>>
>> Option 3: no, I can't support this
>>
>> Option 4: yes, I can support this; Paul Keating's prior suggestion of
>> having Option 1 be the interim solution if Option 4 is
>>
>> Option 5: yes, I support this, and it works in parallel to all other
>> options
>>
>> Option 6: yes, I support mediation
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> George Kirikos
>> 416-588-0269
>> http://www.leap.com/
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> 