<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS Mincho";
panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@MS Mincho";
panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:598486384;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1421313368 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1654525826;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:581202412 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:39.55pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:75.55pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:111.55pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:147.55pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:183.55pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:219.55pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:255.55pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:291.55pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:327.55pt;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:2100984398;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1045819880 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l2:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l2:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l2:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l2:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l2:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l2:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:center;line-height:115%">
<a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Response of Philip S. Corwin to the IGO CRP WG Consensus Call Request<o:p></o:p></span></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:center;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Note: This response is based upon the document “<b>CONSENSUS CALL ON FOUR POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS & SIX ADDITIONAL OPTIONS FOR A POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION FIVE; Prepared by
ICANN staff (25 May 2018)”</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:center;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">IGO CRP WG RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WHICH TEXT HAS BEEN AGREED OR DISCUSSED<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">#1 – I support Recommendation #1. The WG determined that International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) stood in the same position as other private parties bringing
a UDRP or URS, and had no valid claim to judicial immunity that required additional policy consideration or any potential change in CRP rules. The WG requested a Charter change eliminating INGOs from our purview and the GNSO Council granted that request,
effectively closing this matter.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">#2 – I support Recommendation #2 in the form in which it has been modified from the version contained in the WG’s Initial Report, this modification having been undertaken
in response to feedback from several public commenters. Consideration of an IGO’s compliance with the requisite communication and notification procedure in accordance with Article 6<i>ter</i> of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property
as potentially determinative evidence of the IGO having the requisite standing to file a complaint under the UDRP or URS should be permitted, subject to discretionary review by the CRP Examiner; such 6<i>ter</i> filing should not provide automatic standing
as was originally proposed in the Initial Report. This revised approach is consistent with Section 1.3 of the “WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”, which allows a Complainant to submit specific evidence supporting assertions of acquired distinctiveness to
establish unregistered or common law trademark rights. And, as that Section instructs, “Even where a panel finds that a complainant has UDRP standing based on unregistered or common law trademark rights, the strength of the complainant’s mark may be considered
relevant in evaluating the second and third elements.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">#3 – I support recommendation #3. ICANN’s creation and issuance of Policy Guidance outlining the various procedural filing options available to IGOs, bringing this Policy
Guidance to the attention of IGOs and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), and publishing it along with the procedures and rules applicable to the UDRP and URS in aggregated form on the ICANN website, will provide useful guidance to IGOs considering
the initiation of a CRP filing in response to perceived cybersquatting.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">#4 – I support the current proposed language of Recommendation #4, stating that:<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">…the Working Group recognizes that the feasibility of providing IGOs with access to the UDRP and URS at no or nominal cost to the IGOs is one that must be addressed directly
through discussions between the ICANN Board with the GAC and IGOs; while further noting that many Working Group members believe that a respondent should also be eligible to receive financial support for its defense in a case where ICANN has subsidized the
complainant.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">This revised language clearly indicates that the WG is not recommending ICANN subsidization of CRP filings brought by IGOs, but is merely recognizing that is has no authority
to commit ICANN funds.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:center;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">VIEWS ON SIX POLICY OPTIONS FOR A POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION FIVE<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">The four prior recommendations constitute mere window dressing around the edges of the IGO CRP issue, and do not directly address the central question which underpinned
the creation of this WG and which has generated so much discussion and controversy over the nearly four years of its existence.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">That question can be introduced and summarized as follows:
<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">The UDRP and URS both provide a losing domain registrant/respondent with a right to file a judicial appeal where the registrant has ties to a jurisdiction providing a relevant
right of action. Both CRPs do that by permitting appeal to a court of mutual jurisdiction; that being a court jurisdiction at the location of either (a) the principal office of the Registrar or (b) the domain-name holder's address as shown for the registration
of the domain name in the Registrar's WHOIS database at the time the complaint is submitted to the Provider.
<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Both CRPs also provide either party to a dispute with the right to file a judicial action prior to the initiation of or during the pendency of the CRP, with the examiner
free to suspend or terminate the proceeding, or to continue on to determination (however, if the proceeding continues on to determination, any subsequent court decision is controlling as regards disposition of the domain). The URS also provides for an internal
administrative appeal process that is not relevant to the overarching question before the WG.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Domain registrants who are either located within a jurisdiction that allows for litigation of a domain-related trademark dispute to be initiated by the registrant, or that
have obtained a favorable “mutual jurisdiction” through deliberate selection of a registrar principally located in such a jurisdiction, value that legal right and do not want ICANN to require that they surrender it in deference to any party as a condition
for domain registration.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">However, IGOs claim broad jurisdictional immunity from litigation, and both relevant law and judicial decisions provide support for that position, although the ultimate
answer as to whether an IGO enjoys such immunity in regard to a particular dispute can only be determined by the national court in which an immunity defense is raised. The issue of whether an IGO has waived its jurisdictional immunity as a consequence of filing
a CRP action is also one that can only be answered by a national court when and if such an immunity defense is asserted; the “Swaine memo” described the analytical approaches that would be employed by a court in this situation and noted that different approaches,
in combination to differing national law and judicial precedents, could result in different decisions in similar cases. Whatever the ultimate merits of an IGO’s claim to judicial immunity, IGOs do not want ICANN to require that they surrender any claim to
judicial immunity as a condition for filing a CRP action. In the view of IGOs, their legal rights – and the WG has discerned no available rights other than those conferred under the
</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span lang="EN" style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">“trademark or service mark” standard of the UDRP and URS</span></span><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">
as being the proper basis – should be sufficient to establish standing without further condition.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">There is no indication that the potential legal clash between domain registrants and IGOs (or entities possessing sovereign immunity generally) was ever considered when
the mutual jurisdiction clause of the UDRP was adopted. How, then, are the clashing legal rights of domain registrants and IGOs to be balanced?
<i>And, in particular, what should occur when a losing respondent files a judicial appeal from a UDRP or URS decision, and the IGO targeted by the resulting lawsuit successfully asserts its defensive claim of judicial immunity and the litigation is dismissed
by the court?</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">This question is likely to arise very infrequently, as the percentage of UDRP cases that are judicially appealed is quite small, as is the number of CRP actions initiated
by IGOs. But unless this question can be answered in a manner that has a reasonable chance of being adopted as policy by the GNSO Council, and subsequently by the ICANN Board – after the Board considers any relevant GAC advice – this WG will have failed in
its primary responsibility. While a WG’s final recommendations should not be determined solely by internal ICANN political considerations, a WG’s members must also recognize that its output must be reasonably attuned to receiving a harmonious reception from
the broader ICANN community as the policymaking process moves beyond its initial PDP stage.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Given this introductory background, I shall now provide my views on the six options before the WG.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">#1 – I strongly oppose Option 1, which would vitiate the decision rendered against the registrant in the predecessor UDRP or URS if the IGO succeeded in its assertion of
judicial immunity in a subsequent appeal, for the following reasons:<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:3.55pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">ICANN is a California non-profit corporation. It has no right or authority to override, or make any determination regarding the validity or scope of, the legal rights of
either party to a CRP whether the law in question is that of California, the United States, or any other nation. I have been unable to support the GAC consensus advice on this matter because it requested that ICANN preemptively deny domain registrants their
right, where available, to appeal a UDRP or URS decision to a court of competent and mutual jurisdiction. Similarly, ICANN has no authority to determine whether an IGO’s filing of a CRP constituted a complete waiver of the procedural and substantive components
of its judicial immunity, as that question of waiver can only be determined by a national court based upon its own approach to analyzing issues of sovereign immunity, relevant statutes and case law, and the facts of the dispute. Finally, ICANN has no authority
to compel jurisdiction over an IGO in any national court that has determined that a party appearing before it is possesses lawful immunity and is not subject to its authority.<o:p></o:p></span></span></li><li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:3.55pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">This option would single out IGOs – and only IGOs among all possible classes of CRP Complainants -- for punitive treatment for successfully raising a judicial defense in
a court appeal from a URDP or URS decision. A trademark dispute is a civil case, and it is common in such cases for the defendant to seek summary dismissal or otherwise assert available defenses for the purpose of terminating the action. UDRP Rule 4k makes
clear that an adverse administrative decision will be implemented against the domain registrant if the panel receives satisfactory evidence that the lawsuit has been dismissed or withdrawn, regardless of the reason for dismissal. Proponents of Option 1 appear
to feel that an assertion of judicial immunity is a violation of the “mutual jurisdiction” provision, but that is an incorrect reading; an IGO’s refusal to participate in a subsequent judicial appeal would be such a violation (and would likely result in a
default judicial judgment for the domain registrant/plaintiff), but in the contemplated situation an IGO would have procedurally recognized and acquiesced to the court’s jurisdiction through its appearance before it, while retaining its right to assert relevant
substantive defenses. <o:p></o:p></span></span></li><li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:3.55pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">This option fails to satisfy the charge contained in the WG Charter that we “provide the GNSO Council with policy recommendations regarding whether to amend the UDRP and
URS to allow access to and use of these mechanisms by IGOs and INGOs”, as it would further discourage use of available CRPs by IGOs by making clear that such utilization requires an advance capitulation on any substantive claim of jurisdictional immunity raised
in a subsequent court appeal. While the WG has determined that a handful of IGOs have utilized CRP, that does not necessarily negate the assertions of IGO representatives that the potential loss of judicial immunity deters many IGOs from utilizing existing
CRP avenues. Indeed, ICANN has frozen the registration of all domains matching IGO acronyms at all new gTLDs pending resolution of this issue in a belief that present CRP policy would leave IGOs more vulnerable to cybersquatting.<o:p></o:p></span></span></li><li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:3.55pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">The notion of vitiating a previously issued decision in a CRP based upon a successful assertion of rights by a party in a subsequent judicial proceeding (as opposed to a
final court decision) is of questionable legality.<o:p></o:p></span></span></li><li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:3.55pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">This option, regardless of support level or subsequent action by the GNSO Council, is highly unlikely to ever be adopted by the ICANN Board given the near-certainty of strong
adverse advice from the GAC. That opposition would stem not just from the distance between it and prior GAC advice (which, as noted, I do not support), but from two other significant factors. First, it would create a precedent that any successful assertion
of sovereign immunity vitiates a prior adverse CRP decision, and that precedent would logically be applicable not just to IGOs but to any unit of a national government that files a CRP action. Second, it would encourage bad actor domain registrants that had
lost a CRP decision to file a judicial appeal against an IGO known to guard its sovereign immunity, as that would present the IGO with a difficult choice between abandoning assertion of its legal status or, if succeeding in such assertion, seeing the cybersquatting
determined to exist at the domain in question continue unabated without any adequate remedy to protect its own interests or those of the public.<o:p></o:p></span></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:39.55pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">#2 – I strongly oppose Option 2 as it features all the defects of Option 1 while also adopting a two-tier system of CRP administration with attendant administrative complexities.
Domain registrants have no credible basis for believing that if a relevant ICANN Consensus Policy is amended through the PDP approach it would only apply to domains created after its effective date, with all other registrants being “grandfathered” under the
terms of the Policy in effect at the time of initial registration. When the rules change they change for everybody.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">#3 – I strongly support Option 3 for the following reasons:<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">It acknowledges that ICANN has no right or authority to restrict or extinguish the legal rights and protections of domain registrants or IGOs.<o:p></o:p></span></span></li><li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">It properly leaves determination of the merits of an IGO’s claim of judicial immunity to the court of competent and mutual jurisdiction in which it is raised.<o:p></o:p></span></span></li><li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">It provides the domain registrant with an ability to receive a determination of the legality of its domain use under relevant national law through an arbitration procedure
in the wake of an IGO’s successful assertion of judicial immunity. This is a substantial improvement over current UDRP practice, where the prior UDRP decision would take effect upon dismissal of the litigation. If fulfills ICANN’s commitment to provide a domain
registrant with a second opinion under law of a mutual jurisdiction via arbitration when the relevant national court determines that it has no authority over one of the parties to the suit and therefore cannot hear the matter. (For the record, I would not
support such an arbitration right where the court has authority over both parties and has dismissed the suit based on other substantive or procedural grounds.)<o:p></o:p></span></span></li><li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">As the only Option that restricts ICANN to its proper remit by restraining it from interference with any party’s legal rights and protections, that recognizes and attempts
to balance the respective rights of domain registrants and IGOs, and that introduces the concept of arbitration (which is contained in the GAC advice on this subject), it is the sole Option that has any realistic chance of being adopted by both GNSO Council
and the ICANN Board. While it is imperfect, as are most policy options addressing conflicts of legal rights, it is reasonable and balanced.<o:p></o:p></span></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">#4 – I oppose Option 4 as an abdication of responsibility that attempts to kick this matter down the road and saddle an already heavily burdened WG with a potential “poison
pill” issue. The general issue of a judicial immunity based upon a sovereign immunity claim, and its specific application to IGOs, while important, has no broader implications for UDRP/URS appeals practice and can and should be resolved now, by this WG, under
a Charter that specifically empowers it to recommend policy changes. If a singularly focused WG cannot provide a viable answer to this question after nearly four years of work then it is insupportable to ask that it be taken up by a WG that already faces the
daunting challenge of multiple difficult issues. Proponents of this Option have also failed to identify with any specificity what other aspects of the UDRP and URS might be implicated by a rifle shot policy recommendation.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">I do appreciate that the language of this Option has been amended to recommend GNSO Council consultation with the leadership and members of the RPM Review WG as well as
with IGOs, and would switch my position to strong opposition if it reverted to earlier language urging Council to impose this issue on the RPM review WG absent such consultation.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Finally, I would note two things. First, that the Charter of the RPM review WG already directs it to consider the issue of appeals, and the members of the WG are quite capable
of determining whether it should address any special attention to the matter of sovereign immunity defenses in that context. And second, that some proponents of Option 4 also support Option 1, and that in my view it is entirely inconsistent to state that no
policy changes should be recommended at this time while simultaneously recommending a highly significant policy change targeting IGOs that also implicates nation-states and their agencies.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">#5 – I do not support this Option as the concept of “in rem” litigation is not recognized in all judicial systems. Further, as it does not relate to the central issue of
IGO immunity it is a matter more properly and generally raised and discussed within the context of the RPM Review WG.
<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">#6 – I oppose this Option for a number of reasons:<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Its imprecise language seems to confuse voluntary arbitration with mandatory binding arbitration.<o:p></o:p></span></span></li><li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">While voluntary mediation may be worthy of encouragement, it should not be required when the resulting delay may permit harmful cybersquatting to continue for additional
weeks.<o:p></o:p></span></span></li><li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Just as this WG has no authority to commit ICANN funds to subsidize the filing of CRP actions by IGOs, we have no authority to order CRP providers to provide mediation services
at no cost to the parties.<o:p></o:p></span></span></li><li class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo3">
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">To the extent that it requires vitiation of a prior UDRP or URS decision, it suffers from the same fatal defects as Option 1.<o:p></o:p></span></span></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Philip S. Corwin<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Policy Counsel<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">VeriSign, Inc.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span lang="EN" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">12061 Bluemont Way<br>
Reston, VA 20190<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">703-948-4648/Direct<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">571-342-7489/Cell<o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<o:p></o:p></span></i></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p>
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"></span>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Steve Chan<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 25, 2018 6:16 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] CONSENSUS CALL on the WG's Recommendations and Remaining Options<br>
<b>Importance:</b> High<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Dear WG Members,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Attached, please find the compilation of the Working Group’s recommendations and six (6) options related to Recommendation 5.
<i>This message is intended to kick of the consensus call process for the WG’s recommendations and remaining options under Recommendation 5.</i> For those WG members who wish to participate in the consensus call, we ask that you respond on the email list to
note your support or non-support for all recommendations (i.e., recommendations 1-4) AND the six (6) remaining options under recommendation 5.
<b><span style="color:red">Please provide your response on or before Friday, 8 June.</span><o:p></o:p></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Subsequently, the WG Chair will consider response to the consensus call and seek to designate final consensus levels on the recommendations and options, which will be published to the WG’s email list for WG
consideration. WG members will then have the opportunity to object to the designations and the WG may choose to conduct another call on Thursday, 14 June to discuss; WG members will also have the opportunity to file minority statements if applicable, which
will be incorporated into a Final Report for the Council by 17 June.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Note, based on the discussion on the WG’s call held on Friday, 25 May, a handful of changes were made to the attached recommendations/options document, highlighted in yellow (e.g., Recommendation 2, Recommendation
4, Option 4). In addition, footnotes were added, linking to the original rationale and suggestions made by Zak Muscovitch (Option 4), George Kirikos (Option 5) and Paul Tattersfield (Option 6). The same was not done for the first three options as those had
been discussed extensively before the additional three options were added and are included unchanged from the text presented in the October 2017 poll.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">If you have any questions, please let us know.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt">Steve & Mary<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt">Steven Chan</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"MS Mincho"">
</span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt">Policy Director, GNSO Support<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt">ICANN<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt">12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt">Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"MS Mincho"">
</span><span style="font-size:9.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt"><a href="mailto:steve.chan@icann.org">steve.chan@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt">mobile: +1.310.339.4410<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt">office tel: +1.310.301.5800<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt">office fax: +1.310.823.8649<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt">Find out more about the GNSO by taking our i<a href="applewebdata://310CAD3E-E244-4690-A938-C2655DD44BDE/learn.icann.org/courses/gnso">nteractive courses</a> and visiting the <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers">GNSO
Newcomer pages</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt">Follow @GNSO on Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO">https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt">Follow the GNSO on Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/">https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt"><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/">http://gnso.icann.org/en/</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>