<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Dear George,<br><br>Too much detail and irrelevant complexity (as with Swaine) just allows those with an
ulterior motive to hide bad things.The final report is easy and much more than a few pages page shouldn’t
really be required.<br><br><b>Executive Summary</b><br>The IGOs are
never entitled to jurisdictional immunity after initiating proceedings
and UDRP is not the right process for dealing with the cited harms.<br><br><b>Introduction</b><br>The introduction should set out a very simple reasoning on the core issues such as:<br> <br>The IGOs have defensible rights<br><a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-July/000778.html">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-July/000778.html</a><br><br>The
IGO’s rights do not extend to jurisdictional immunity after initiating
proceedings<br><a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001136.html">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001136.html</a>
and given the expense and time involved in its preparation a brief
explanation is warranted as to why the Swaine Memo is not relevant to
the working group’s deliberations.<br><br>UDRP is not the correct tool
for dealing with the harms the IGOs have asked for help with
<br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-October/000883.html">https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-October/000883.html</a>
#Practical considerations.<br><br><b>Conclusion</b><br>UDRP can
never be the most effective way of dealing with the harms (domains with
credit card fraud for fund raising campaigns for disaster relief etc.)
the IGOs are looking to cure. Not only are the IGOs never entitled to
jurisdictional immunity after initiating proceedings but equally
importantly given the types of domains involved and the two months or so
it takes to reach a successful determination UDRP is unlikely to ever
be the best way to resolve such harms.<br><br><b>Recommendations</b> <br>ICANN
should advise the IGOs and INGOs to contact the registrars of any
domains involved in the harms they are seeking address. The working
group has found the overwhelming majority of registrars are willing to
deal with such behaviour at no cost and in a timely manner. In the
unlikely event that a registrar would not wish to help ICANN has
contractual provisions in place to investigate the reasons for such a
decision.<br><br></div>END <br><br><b><span lang="EN-GB">Wider
improvements to the multistakeholder model</span></b><br></div>We could have improved things for IGOs we could have gone a long way to meeting GAC advice but those leading this working group chose for their own reasons not to even explore that route. The only other issue I can see of any value at this point is what can be learned from this mess.<br><div><div><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-GB"><br>
</span></b><span lang="EN-GB">The bigger issue is does ICANN want to
prevent the ridiculous situation the co-chairs have been allowed to
create from ever happening again? Part of me worries that either ICANN
has no real motivation or perhaps no ability as it is currently
constituted to correct the kind of behaviour we have just witnessed. If
this the case then it is a far more serious matter than the simple
directional failure of a single working group, rather it calls in to
question the effectiveness of the whole multistakeholder model.<br><br>A
first step I consider ICANN should remove the voting rights of all of
those that hold the office of co-chair or chair on consensus matters.
The co-chair and chair function should be purely administrative since
the management of process affords them power that other working group
members do not enjoy. It should never be possible for any one person to
bring forward a proposal as ridiculous as option #3 and seriously expect
it to be able to have it forced through using such sustained multiple
abuses of process to the point where process itself collapses.<br><br>ICANN
needs to look very carefully at the GNSO and what it is and is not
achieving. The IGO immunity issue nonsense does not stand alone even
amongst current issues. <br><br>GDPR /WHOIS is likely to be a looming
disaster of ICANN’s own making, again like the IGO immunity issues GDPR
can be very simply resolved <br><a href="https://domainnamewire.com/2018/05/02/consensus-be-damned-heres-how-transfers-will-work-at-tucows-after-gdpr/">https://domainnamewire.com/2018/05/02/consensus-be-damned-heres-how-transfers-will-work-at-tucows-after-gdpr/</a>
(#comment 4) yet it is likely ICANN is going to be responsible for creating another enormous mess.<br><br>UDRP was incredibly well drafted
and steps must be taken to ensure that the RPM working group is not led
to a similar disaster. It is ironic that those who were leading chorus
to change UDRP have not been able to demonstrate they have neither the
ability nor the humility to actually improve on what is already there.<br><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Yours sincerely,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Paul<br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"" lang="EN-GB"><br></span></p></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 1:23 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>
Seventeen days ago, on the April 19th call, I pointed out that the<br>
input was miscounted (among other things), and Susan specifically<br>
stated that:<br>
<br>
"We will check on a number of people that provided input and correct<br>
that in the report."<br>
<br>
[bottom of page 17 of the transcript at:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/wAEFBQ" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/x/<wbr>wAEFBQ</a><br>
<br>
<a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/84214208/transcript%20IGO%20INGO%20CRP%2019April.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1524230243000&api=v2" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/<wbr>download/attachments/84214208/<wbr>transcript%20IGO%20INGO%20CRP%<wbr>2019April.pdf?version=1&<wbr>modificationDate=<wbr>1524230243000&api=v2</a><br>
]<br>
<br>
Why has this not been done yet? This is only a count of 9 vs 10<br>
people, and shouldn't take more than a few minutes, and certainly not<br>
more than 2 weeks (and counting).<br>
<br>
This was also but one of the issues I raised in the previous email to<br>
the mailing list:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/001139.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/<wbr>gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-April/<wbr>001139.html</a><br>
<br>
in the attached PDF, and hasn't been addressed.<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>
______________________________<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>