<div dir="ltr">Thanks, Steve.<div><br></div><div>While the WG's discussions of late have delved into how particular variations of an option 2 might work and play out if selected, in the big picture there has been no consensus/acquiescence to any particular option appendage to Rec 4. We are simply listening, discussing and considering.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><font color="#000000" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:13.63636302948px">Sincerely,</span></font></div><div dir="ltr"><span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><font><font face="Arial"><font color="#0000F8" style="font-size:10pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">Jay Chapman</span><b><br></b></font></font></font></span></span></span></span></span></div><div dir="ltr"><span style="border-collapse:separate;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-size:12px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><font size="2"><font face="Arial"><span style="font-size:10pt"><br></span></font></font></span></span></span></span></span><font size="2"><span style="border-collapse:separate;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="border-collapse:separate;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><font face="Arial"><span>This
e-mail & any attachment(s) is(/are) confidential & only for the
intended recipient(s). If you are not an intended recipient, please
immediately notify me, delete this e-mail & all attachment(s).</span></font></span></span></span></span></span></font><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 7:10 PM, George Kirikos <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:icann@leap.com" target="_blank">icann@leap.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi folks,<br>
<br>
Just to be clear, I don't believe this PDP or working group has made a<br>
"provisional agreement" on anything in relation to Recommendation 4 at<br>
this time. In particular, various options were discussed in terms of<br>
incorporating elements of Options #3 and #6 into Option #2, in order<br>
to making it more palatable to those who are in favour of other<br>
options (i.e. those who favour Option #1, or Option #4, etc).<br>
<br>
My understanding has been that those suggested improvements to the<br>
bare Option #2 will *then* be presented as a potential package for<br>
consideration, *along* with the existing options that are still on the<br>
table (which haven't been dismissed). And when it comes time have a<br>
consensus call/vote, we can see which option(s) win the support of the<br>
group.<br>
<br>
So, to the extent that there's "provisional agreement", it's only to<br>
the extent of how to *supplement* the bare Option #2, without<br>
prejudice to any other options that still exist.<br>
<br>
If we want to be explicit about rankings, I'm still of the view that<br>
the best choices are roughly (in order from best to worst):<br>
<br>
(a) Option #1 (set aside the UDRP decision if the IGO successfully<br>
asserts immunity in court)<br>
(b) Option #4 (i.e. Option #1 for existing domains, Option #2 for<br>
newly created ones)<br>
(c) Option #3 + Option #6 as a package (to capture the in-rem and<br>
quasi in-rem elements)<br>
(d) Option #2 strengthened with elements from Options #3 and #6 (what<br>
we've been discussing the past few weeks), as a package<br>
(e) Option #2 alone (arbitration if IGO successfully asserts immunity in court)<br>
<br>
but at this point, the broader PDP membership hasn't yet weighed in,<br>
to see which option(s) do have consensus support.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
George Kirikos<br>
416-588-0269<br>
<a href="http://www.leap.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.leap.com/</a><br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Steve Chan <<a href="mailto:steve.chan@icann.org">steve.chan@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> Dear WG Members,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Below, please find an email sent on behalf and at the request of the WG<br>
> co-chairs.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On the 14 September WG call, in further discussing the options related to<br>
> Recommendation 4, we reviewed an updated diagram (attached) and considered<br>
> the two specific questions below. On the call, the WG reached provisional<br>
> agreement as follows.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Should limitation of the court review or arbitration to disposition of the<br>
> domain name require mutual agreement of the Respondent and IGO, or should we<br>
> recommend that limitation for one or both appeal forums?<br>
><br>
> If this WG were to recommend that court review be limited to ownership of<br>
> the domain name, it appears unlikely that ICANN policy would prevent a court<br>
> of mutual jurisdiction from exploring all remedies that it has access to.<br>
> However, parties could be encouraged or at least be made aware that judicial<br>
> appeals could be limited to ownership of the domain name. We anticipate that<br>
> the Respondent, by forgoing its ability to seek monetary damages or<br>
> injunctive relief, could reasonably expect that the IGO (complainant) would<br>
> forgo its ability to assert a defense of judicial immunity.<br>
> Arbitration could be limited to the disposition of the domain name in<br>
> recognition that this option, coming after an IGO’s successful assertion of<br>
> an immunity defense, provides an avenue of additional appeal that is<br>
> unavailable to Respondents at present; as well as that an arbitration body<br>
> has little or no power to enforce a money judgment or injunction against an<br>
> IGO.<br>
><br>
> Should the Respondent be permitted to choose to go directly to arbitration<br>
> rather than judicial appeal if it wishes to?<br>
><br>
> The WG agreed that respondents should be allowed to file an arbitration<br>
> action after the UDRP/URS is concluded in the IGO’s favor if it wishes to<br>
> avoid the costs and lengths of a judicial appeal. However, the WG also<br>
> discussed and is now posing the following questions: In addition to the<br>
> previous allowance, should respondents also be permitted to file an<br>
> arbitration action before or during the pendency (pre-decision) of a UDRP?<br>
> Should such pre-decision filing require mutual agreement of the IGO<br>
> complainant?<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> The co-chairs encourage all WG members, especially those who do not<br>
> participate on the WG calls on a regular basis, to provide their feedback<br>
> and response to the specific questions above. We hope and anticipate<br>
> completing the Final Report prior to ICANN60 and therefore, your feedback is<br>
> critical in shaping this WG’s final recommendations.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Best,<br>
><br>
> Steve<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Steven Chan<br>
><br>
> Policy Director, GNSO Support<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ICANN<br>
><br>
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300<br>
><br>
> Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536<br>
><br>
> <a href="mailto:steve.chan@icann.org">steve.chan@icann.org</a><br>
><br>
> mobile: <a href="tel:%2B1.310.339.4410" value="+13103394410">+1.310.339.4410</a><br>
><br>
> office tel: <a href="tel:%2B1.310.301.5800" value="+13103015800">+1.310.301.5800</a><br>
><br>
> office fax: <a href="tel:%2B1.310.823.8649" value="+13108238649">+1.310.823.8649</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting<br>
> the GNSO Newcomer pages.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO</a><br>
><br>
> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/<wbr>icanngnso/</a><br>
><br>
> <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://gnso.icann.org/en/</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div>> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</a><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</a></blockquote></div><br></div></div>