<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<meta content="script-src 'self'; img-src * cid: data:;">
<div style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255); line-height:initial">
<div id="x_response_container_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="outline:none; font-size:initial; font-family:"Calibri","Slate Pro",sans-serif,"sans-serif"">
<div name="x_BB10" dir="auto" style="width:100%; padding:initial; font-size:initial; text-align:initial; background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
Thanks George </div>
<div name="x_BB10" id="x_BB10_response_div_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="width:100%; padding:initial; font-size:initial; text-align:initial; background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div name="x_BB10" id="x_BB10_response_div_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="width:100%; padding:initial; font-size:initial; text-align:initial; background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
Look forward to tomorrow's discussion. </div>
<div name="x_BB10" dir="auto" style="width:100%; padding:initial; font-size:initial; text-align:initial; background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br style="display:initial">
</div>
<div id="x_blackberry_signature_BBPPID" name="x_BB10" dir="auto">
<div name="x_BB10" dir="auto" style="padding:initial; font-size:initial; text-align:initial; background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
Sent from my BlackBerry - the most secure mobile device</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="x__original_msg_header_BBPPID" dir="auto">
<table width="100%" style="background-color:white; border-spacing:0px; display:table; outline:none">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" style="padding:initial; font-size:initial; text-align:initial; background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<div style="border-right:none; border-bottom:none; border-left:none; border-top:1pt solid rgb(181,196,223); padding:3pt 0in 0in; font-family:Tahoma,"BB Alpha Sans","Slate Pro"; font-size:10pt">
<div id="x_from"><b>From:</b> icann@leap.com</div>
<div id="x_sent"><b>Sent:</b> July 19, 2017 6:16 PM</div>
<div id="x_to"><b>To:</b> gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</div>
<div id="x_subject"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Allocation of time for Options #3 and #4 for next week's agenda</div>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div style="border-right:none; border-bottom:none; border-left:none; border-top:1pt solid rgb(186,188,209); display:block; padding:initial; font-size:initial; text-align:initial; background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:<br>
> In regard to your option 3, which as I understand it would have IGOs enter<br>
> into a recognition of mutual jurisdiction only in regard to domain transfer<br>
> or extinguishment, but not in regard to other penalties (e.g., monetary<br>
> damages) that might be available per the national law on which the appeal<br>
> was based, I'd be interested in hearing whether a court would likely respect<br>
> such limited waiver, especially if the domain registrant undertaking the<br>
> appeal was seeking additional penalties provided for by the law.<br>
<br>
It's not "my" Option #3 --- as I noted, the idea of a limited waiver<br>
came from Paul Keating.<br>
<br>
> As for option 4, which as I recall was a rather complex proposal to have one<br>
> set of rules for existing domains and another for domains registered after<br>
> the effective date of adoption of any policy proposals recommended by this<br>
> group, I have significant concerns about it for the following reasons:<br>
><br>
> · Any complex proposal tends to raise a host of additional issues<br>
> (such as treatment of domains transferred or repurposed after the effective<br>
> date)<br>
><br>
> · Council and the ICANN Board may feel that we have not fulfilled<br>
> our Charter mandate by proposing a solution that pertains only to future<br>
> gTLD domains and not those presently registered<br>
><br>
> · It may be based on a view that we are proposing a change in<br>
> treatment that adversely affects the rights of existing domain registrants,<br>
> whereas my view is that the Option 2 we have been discussing would assure<br>
> current registrants of a form of appeal that would be unavailable today<br>
<br>
It's not a "complex" set of rules at all, treating domains differently<br>
by creation date, or other criteria. e.g. ICANN has different rules<br>
for registrars depending on which version of the RAA they've signed.<br>
ICANN has different rules for registries (e.g. .com with price<br>
controls, vs. new gTLDs without them).<br>
<br>
But, the "killer" precedent is that another IGO policy implementation<br>
(proposed, the one whose comment period recently conclude) has the<br>
EXACT SAME DIFFERENTIATION! See:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-protection-2017-05-17-en">https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-protection-2017-05-17-en</a><br>
<br>
Section 4.2 -- Existing Registrations in gTLDs<br>
<br>
where there's grandfathering, going by creation date. I made it clear<br>
that the treatment of domain names transferred after the effective<br>
date would be handled in the exact same manner (i.e. one goes by<br>
creation date, not having to look at anything else).<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
George Kirikos<br>
416-588-0269<br>
<a href="http://www.leap.com/">http://www.leap.com/</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list<br>
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</a></div>
</span></font>
</body>
</html>