<div dir="ltr"><div>Having spent so much time and effort getting this far it is very disappointing to see these ill prepared options being presented for consideration.<br><br>I agree with George, I can not give weight to a position advocating implementing Option C as it currently stands. – Quite simply it needs work if it is to be equitable and tenable.<br><br></div><div>Best regards,<br><br><br></div><div>Paul.<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><div><br><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:40 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">Personally, after some thought, I think it would have been best for<br>
all responses to have been to the mailing list, so that all PDP<br>
members had equal and transparent access to the survey results (given<br>
ICANN is supposed to operate as transparently as possible). Is there a<br>
public link to the survey responses?<br>
<br>
I already closed the survey, but here's my response, paraphrased from<br>
my best memory (others might want to post their views, too), is (no<br>
surprises here):<br>
<br>
1. "Support" --- first best option; ensures due process and supremacy<br>
of the legal system; initiation of a UDRP doesn't affect legal rights,<br>
regardless of who is the initiator (IGO or non-IGO complainant)<br>
<br>
2. "Support" --- second best option, compared with "Option A". Takes<br>
into account that IGOs pushed for this review due to fears of<br>
cybersquatting in new gTLDs (although Option C would apply to newly<br>
created domains regardless of gTLD).<br>
<br>
3. "Do Not Support" -- if the old Option #6 was *fully* incorporated<br>
into Option C (namely, registrars being instructed that they must<br>
freeze the domain name if a judicial review is sought "in rem" by the<br>
registrant, instead of just "in personam" as it is now the case), I<br>
might update to "I can live with this option", but "Option C" is still<br>
not fully fleshed out so I must vote "Do Not Support"<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
George Kirikos<br>
<a href="tel:416-588-0269" value="+14165880269">416-588-0269</a><br>
<a href="http://www.leap.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.leap.com/</a><br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Mary Wong <<a href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org">mary.wong@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> Dear Working Group members,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> At the direction of the co-chairs and with their approval, staff has<br>
> prepared the following survey that we are asking all members to fill out by<br>
> 1800 UTC on Monday 23 October. The purpose of the survey is to enable Phil<br>
> and Petter to determine the level of preliminary consensus amongst all<br>
> members for each of the three options under discussion, relating to the<br>
> situation where a respondent has filed court proceedings against an IGO and<br>
> the IGO has successfully claimed immunity in that court. As our open<br>
> community session at ICANN60 will be devoted to a presentation and<br>
> discussion of all our proposed final recommendations, it is important for<br>
> Phil and Petter to know which option is the most preferred at this stage.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Link to survey: <a href="https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VCP8VKD" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.surveymonkey.com/<wbr>r/VCP8VKD</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Link to background materials: <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/64ZEB" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/x/<wbr>64ZEB</a> (you will<br>
> find the slides used by Petter and Phil to present all the proposed final<br>
> recommendations and options during the webinar last week, as well as the<br>
> most current version of the Options A, B and C document, under Background<br>
> Documents. Please be sure to review these to familiarize yourself with the<br>
> full details of the three options).<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Please note that this survey is not intended to be a formal vote, nor does<br>
> it replace the mandatory consensus call that will take place on all the<br>
> final recommendations prior to our submission of the Final Report to the<br>
> GNSO Council. The co-chairs currently expect the Working Group to finalize<br>
> all recommendations following community feedback at ICANN60.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Please raise any questions or concerns you may have to this mailing list<br>
> before the survey closes on Monday 23 October.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Thanks and cheers<br>
><br>
> Mary<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><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>