<div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Dear Mary & Imran,<br><br>There are a lot of issues to cover here. George has already dealt with the incorrect reasoning on the perceived differences on the way IGO and non IGO claimants are dealt with so I’ll not comment other than to say clearly one has been heard one has not.<br><br>George has also commented extensively on the technical discussion behind the options so here is an attempt to get an overview of the problems I believe we are tasked with solving to bring this working group to a final conclusion.<br><br>Yours sincerely,<br><br><br>Paul.<br><br><br><b>Drafting considerations</b><br><br>Options A, B & C are not drafted objectively. In the All RPMs Working Group the Trademark and Industry interests would be up in arms if anyone ever dared to place such options before them for consideration. They complain about the inclusion of individual words never mind impartial phrases, concepts or reasoning in the preamble yet alone in the options being considered.<br><br>For example:<br><br>In option ‘A’ if an IGO refuses to participate in court proceedings <br>‘the decision rendered against the registrant in the predecessor UDRP or URS shall be vitiated’<br><br>In option ‘C’ if an IGO refuses to participate in arbitral proceedings <br>‘the enforcement of the underlying UDRP/URS decision will be permanently stayed’<br><br>Are these outcomes different? Would some people read them differently?<br><br><br><b>Theoretical considerations</b><br><br>Firstly the IGO Small Group has indicated that it recognises the principle of coexistence so the IGOs are not seeking an automatic right to all their names and acronyms, so whether option A is a fair outcome or not ultimately depends on whether an IGO is entitled to immunity in any court proceedings following on from a UDRP.<br><br>If there was no UDRP process available and an IGO could not reach agreement with the registrant it would have to look to a court to settle the matter. With the IGO being the complainant it would not be possible for court to consider the matter without the IGO submitting to the courts jurisdiction. <br><br>This is important: I can find no forum including the current UDRP which permits an IGO to claim jurisdictional immunity after initiating a dispute.<br><br>So the question is: Should an IGO ever be entitled to immunity when a registrant brings a court action in response to a UDRP which the IGO has chosen to initiate?<br><br>Unfortunately the working group has not formally answered this fundamental question and until this question is fully considered the working group runs the risk of building bad policy based on political considerations rather than sound principles.<br><br>The way Option C as currently drafted is clumsy, theoretical and inconsistent the working group’s proposed reasoning on mutual jurisdiction, whereas option A is much simpler theoretical tidying exercise. (Albeit an unpalatable reasoning for some people.)<br><br><br><b>Practical considerations</b><br><br>The idea that a bad actor scamming credit card donations from an Ebola Crisis or UNCHR is going to respond to a UDRP never mind take court action costing $10,000s is beyond parody.<br><br>UDRP and URS was never intended to stop this kind of behaviour the idea that anyone would wait two months for a UDRP ruling to stop someone scamming credit card donations intended for an IGO’s is also surreal.<br><br>The examples from the New York Times article cited by WIPO in their submission to our working group’s first report couldn’t be solved even if we as a working group said every domain that the IGO’s demanded had to be automatically given to the IGOs. Simply because none of them involved an infringing domain. (They involved faked email headers). <br><br>When domains are used in these types of scams these bad actors often register hundreds or even thousands of non-infringing domains and cycle through them in hours because registrars are good at shutting them down.<br><br>The overwhelming majority of registrars are more than happy to shut down such scam sites often in minutes of being reported and for free! Further ICANN accreditation compliance actually requires a registrar to take action on such behaviour, should a registrar resist it is a serious matter for the registrar as they risk losing their business through the improper use of a single customer’s domain(s).<br><br>Options A, B & C will have zero impact on the examples WIPO have given, WIPO needs to look at other non UDRP/URS solutions to solve this problem. While they are expending time and resources on this, they are failing to present informed, unbiased advice on behalf of the IGO and wider communities on how to genuinely solve these sorts of issues.<br><br><br><b>Political considerations</b><br><br>Many IGO’s do incredible works and ICANN as an organization should make every effort to ensure that these organizations are well protected in the DNS. There are also a myriad of INGO, NGOs, small groups and even individuals that also do great works and they too must be equally well protected in the DNS.<br><br>It is really troubling that a handful of individuals will lobby at the highest level for fundamental changes that could if implanted incorrectly in option C, test the very foundations of UDRP (which has been, one of ICANN’s leading achievements) for a purpose that will not even begin to solve the problems they state they wish to solve.<br><br>When someone is lobbying for special powers I’m always minded that we must be very careful not to create the situation where all registrants are equal but some registrants are more equal than others.<br><br><br><br></span><div class="gmail_extra"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Oh, and on option B that’s a halfway house to try and minimize some of the possible damage done by a badly implemented option C.<br></span><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Mary Wong <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org" target="_blank">mary.wong@icann.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US">
<div class="gmail-m_-517886433732322813WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Imran,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/mwghB" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/x/<wbr>mwghB</a>).
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/64ZEB" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/x/<wbr>64ZEB</a>.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I hope this is helpful. The chairs and other Working Group members may wish to add their own comments.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks and cheers<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Mary<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">Imran Ahmed Shah <<a href="mailto:ias_pk@yahoo.com" target="_blank">ias_pk@yahoo.com</a>><br>
<b>Reply-To: </b>Imran Ahmed Shah <<a href="mailto:ias_pk@yahoo.com" target="_blank">ias_pk@yahoo.com</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 10:32<br>
<b>To: </b>Mary Wong <<a href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org" target="_blank">mary.wong@icann.org</a>>, "<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Cc: </b>Imran Ahmed Shah <<a href="mailto:imran@uisoc.org" target="_blank">imran@uisoc.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[Ext] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE COMPLETE SURVEY to detect consensus on Options A, B or C<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64108">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black">Dear Mary Wong, and Dear All WG Members,<br id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64165">
<br id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64166">
Thanks for the Survey and obtaining the opinion of all WG Members.<br id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64167">
<br id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64168">
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.<br id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64169">
<br id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64170">
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?<br id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64171">
<br id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64172">
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.<br id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64173">
<br id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64174">
After consulting it further I reach on the following understanding:<br id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64175">
<br id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64176">
Explaining that which of the UDRP decision will be set aside/erased/not given force?<br id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64177">
<br id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64178">
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.<br id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64179">
<br id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64180">
And this reversal would permit the cybersquatting found by the panel to persist.<br id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64181">
<br id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64182">
“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.”<br id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64183">
<br>
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64185">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black">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?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64187">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64214">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black">Thanking you and Best Regards<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64212">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64303">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black">Imran Ahmed Shah<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64114">
<div id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64113">
<div id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64112">
<div id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1508390335528_64111">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%" align="center">
<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">
<hr align="center" size="1" width="100%">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> Mary Wong <<a href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org" target="_blank">mary.wong@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>To:</b> "<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>> <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, 17 October 2017, 1:39<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE COMPLETE SURVEY to detect consensus on Options A, B or C</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div id="gmail-m_-517886433732322813yiv6104925733">
<div>
<div><span class="gmail-">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black">Dear Working Group members,</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black">At the direction of the co-chairs and with their approval, staff has prepared the following survey that we are asking
<u>all members to fill out by</u> <b>1800 UTC on Monday 23 October</b>. <u>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</u>, 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.
</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</span><ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;margin-left:0in;background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%">
<span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif">Link to survey: <a href="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=" target="_blank">
https://www.surveymonkey.com/<wbr>r/VCP8VKD[surveymonkey.com]</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></li></ul>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;margin-left:0in;background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%">
<span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif">Link to background materials:
<a href="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=" target="_blank">
https://community.icann.org/x/<wbr>64ZEB[community.icann.org]</a> (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).</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></li></ul><span class="gmail-">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><b><i><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></i></b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><b><i><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black">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</span></i></b><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black">. The co-chairs currently expect the Working Group to finalize all recommendations
following community feedback at ICANN60. </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black">Please raise any questions or concerns you may have to this mailing list before the survey closes on Monday 23 October.</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black">Thanks and cheers</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black">Mary</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
</div><span class="gmail-">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt;background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;color:black">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<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></div>