<div dir="ltr">Dear WG members,<div><br></div><div>While it will likely be sorted out eventually, I'd like to clarify that my comments regarding Option #3 were not intended to be viewed as supporting that option.</div><div><br></div><div>I wrote in support of Zak's comments, who stated as to Option #3 that "<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">I cannot support it in its present form".</span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline"><br></span></div><div>Similarly while I see a theoretical possibility that option 3 could be structured in a way that I could support, I cannot support it in the absence of a concrete proposal whose merits can be evaluated. In my view the defects in the UDRP would first have to addressed, either through the RPM WG or through creating an IGO-specific UDRP that better safeguarded domain owners. But as that has not yet been fleshed out, or even proposed as far as I'm aware, it would be premature to express support for option #3.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I write now in part because, due to a conflict, I will not be able to participate on tomorrow's call.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Nat Cohen</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 3:33 PM, Nat Cohen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ncohen@telepathy.com" target="_blank">ncohen@telepathy.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Dear WG Members,<div><br></div><div>I write in support of Zak's positions, and add the following comments-</div><div><br></div><div><b>Option #1 </b> should work well for IGOs whether they realize it or not. It is quite rare for a UDRP decision to be challenged in court. The practical effect of Option #1 is to enable IGOs to avail of the UDRP either directly, or through an agent, and if they win to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain in the likely 90%+ of the instances where the decision is not challenged. Since in most jurisdictions it is quite expensive to file in a national court, a domain owner is only likely to file if he/she believes the domain name has substantial inherent value unrelated to an IGO's use - which is just the sort of domain that likely should not be ordered transferred through a UDRP. </div><div><br></div><div>IGOs are not being singled out for punitive treatment. IGOs are requesting special treatment and for the ability to subject domain owners to a flawed and biased quick-and-dirty proceeding without the possibility of judicial recourse. To assert a domain owner's right to judicial review is not punitive towards IGOs.</div><div><br></div><div><b>Option #3</b> - if a procedure was created that genuinely resulted in transfers only in cases of blatant cybersquatting, and that adequately protected the rights of domain investors - which the UDRP does not - then I would be open to giving it strong consideration.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Nat Cohen</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:23 PM, Zak Muscovitch <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:zak@muscovitch.com" target="_blank">zak@muscovitch.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5"><div lang="EN-CA" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class="m_8985588754173351398m_-628219991569700662WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Dear WG members:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Further to the below request for a response to the consensus call, please see my below response:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></p><ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="1" type="1"><li class="m_8985588754173351398m_-628219991569700662MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I generally support Recommendation #1. I would clarify however, that no “substantive” changes are required (i.e. thereby leaving open the possibility of procedural changes).</span></li></ol><p class="m_8985588754173351398m_-628219991569700662MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></p><ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="2" type="1"><li class="m_8985588754173351398m_-628219991569700662MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I generally support Recommendation #2, with the caveat that an IGO can demonstrate its rights by showing common law or unregistered rights in a name, for which 6ter compliance can be used. </span></li></ol><p class="m_8985588754173351398m_-628219991569700662MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></p><ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="3" type="1"><li class="m_8985588754173351398m_-628219991569700662MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I generally support Recommendation #3, and would add that if any procedural adjustments are required to provide greater clarity, that would be consistent with my suggested revision to Recommendation #1.</span></li></ol><p class="m_8985588754173351398m_-628219991569700662MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></p><ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="4" type="1"><li class="m_8985588754173351398m_-628219991569700662MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I generally support Recommendation #4, however I would note that any exploration of feasibility for providing subsidies to increase access to justice, should be means tested and should not necessarily be restricted to IGO’s, and I would convey this thought in the Recommendation.</span></li></ol><p class="m_8985588754173351398m_-628219991569700662MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></p><ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="5" type="1"><li class="m_8985588754173351398m_-628219991569700662MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0cm"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I support <b>Option 4</b> of Recommendation #5, which I had proposed compromise solution in the absence of universal agreement on which Recommendation this WG makes. I realize that it is not an ideal outcome, but it attempts to balance the perspectives of those who support Option 1, with those that think that a substantial revision to the Policy is required to accommodate IGO interests. In the latter case, such changes IMHO would necessarily have to be undertaken within the broader mandate of the RPM WG which will be looking at the UDRP as a whole. </span></li></ol><p class="m_8985588754173351398m_-628219991569700662MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></p><p class="m_8985588754173351398m_-628219991569700662MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I do however, support <b>Option 1</b> in principle, though I suggest that the word, “vacated” be used instead of “vitiated”. The reason for my support of Option 1 in principle, is that as Mr. Tattersfield has pointed out on numerous occasions, any IGO that commences civil legal proceedings against any stranger for any matter, would necessarily as a matter of course, implicitly waive the jurisdictional immunity that it otherwise has, and I see no reason that the UDRP should be any different. </span></p><p class="m_8985588754173351398m_-628219991569700662MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></p><p class="m_8985588754173351398m_-628219991569700662MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I would also support <b>Option 2,</b> as it would be an interesting and reasonable compromise that would drive potentially better policy making.</span></p><p class="m_8985588754173351398m_-628219991569700662MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></p><p class="m_8985588754173351398m_-628219991569700662MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I understand <b>Option 3</b> and appreciate the objective and rationale behind it, although I cannot support it in its present form. Nevertheless, it is a creative solution and attempted compromise. My concerns with it are substantial and twofold; </span></p><p class="m_8985588754173351398m_-628219991569700662MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></p><p class="m_8985588754173351398m_-628219991569700662MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">a) Any party that commences a civil legal proceeding of any kind against a stranger ipso facto voluntarily and implicitly waives immunity if they have it to begin with, and Option 3 attempts to allow IGO’s to at once avail themselves of the UDRP procedure without giving up their immunity – which as aforesaid – is unjustifiable IMHO since it allows ‘sucking and blowing’ at the same time. Furthermore, registrants have a well founded right to go to court, which they understandably do not want to give up, nor should they be compelled to give it up, particularly since being subjected to the UDRP in the first place involved a grand bargain wherein they would not lose the right to go to court; and</span></p><p class="m_8985588754173351398m_-628219991569700662MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></p><p class="m_8985588754173351398m_-628219991569700662MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">b) Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, I can nevertheless see how this solution could in principle provide a remedy to this intractable situation which inevitably pits the rights of IGO’s against the rights of registrants (as Dr. Swaine pointed out), but to effect a solution such as this, there would have to be substantial safeguards for the rights of registrants in terms of the nature of the arbitration, such that it would be an attractive trade-off for losing (what many registrants consider to be) the inalienable right to go to court to protect one’s rights and assets, and as presently envisioned I am not satisfied that is the case. As such I am unable to support it. For example, a registrant having to go to court to fight of an immunity claim, or for that matter, an IGO having to go to court to make an immunity claim following a UDRP, seems like an unnecessarily burdensome step for both parties, albeit likely rare. Moreover, the nature of the proposed arbitration at this time is insufficiently clear and therefore provides me with an insufficient basis for considering it to be an adequate substitute for court proceedings. </span></p><p class="m_8985588754173351398m_-628219991569700662MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></p><p class="m_8985588754173351398m_-628219991569700662MsoListParagraph"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">If however, I did see a procedure and arbitration framework which provided sufficient comfort and attractiveness such that it was a reasonable and justifiable alternative for registrants in exchange for their right to go to court, that is something that I would further consider.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I would also support <b>Option 5</b>, which would provide a creative way of allowing a court action without necessarily naming an IGO, however I am uncertain as to whether in rem actions are universally available in all jurisdictions.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">I would also support <b>Option 6 </b>in principle, as mediation can potentially solve many disputes, not just for IGO’s but for UDRP Complainants and Respondents generally. I am uncertain however, where the funding would come from.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Yours truly,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Zak Muscovitch</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></p><div><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@ica<wbr>nn.org</a>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Steve Chan<br><b>Sent:</b> June-05-18 12:02 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] CONSENSUS CALL on the WG's Recommendations and Remaining Options</span></p></div></div><div><div class="m_8985588754173351398h5"><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt">Dear WG Members,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt">This message is to remind you all that your response to the consensus call, initiated on 25 May, must be sent to the email list by <b><span style="color:red">Friday, 8 June </span></b>in order for it to be taken into proper account in the WG Chair’s assessment of consensus levels. Please see the original message below for further details.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt">Note, due to availability issues, we are expecting to move the WG’s next meeting, originally intended for Thursday, 14 June, to Tuesday, 12 June. You can anticipate receiving a meeting invitation in the near future.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt">Best,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt">Steve</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span></p><div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">From: </span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@ica<wbr>nn.org</a>> on behalf of Steve Chan <<a href="mailto:steve.chan@icann.org" target="_blank">steve.chan@icann.org</a>><br><b>Date: </b>Friday, May 25, 2018 at 3:19 PM<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>Subject: </b>[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] CONSENSUS CALL on the WG's Recommendations and Remaining Options</span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"><a name="m_8985588754173351398_m_-628219991569700662__MailOriginalBody"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt">Dear WG Members,</span></a><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" 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></b></span></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span></b></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" 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.</span></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" 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.</span></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt">If you have any questions, please let us know.</span></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt">Best,</span></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt">Steve & Mary</span></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt"> </span></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt">Steven Chan</span></b></span><span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"MS Mincho"">
</span></b></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt">Policy Director, GNSO Support</span></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"> </span></b></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt">ICANN</span></b></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt">12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300</span></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt">Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536</span></span><span><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"MS Mincho"">
</span></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span></span><a href="mailto:steve.chan@icann.org" target="_blank"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt">steve.chan@icann.org</span></span><span></span></a><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt">mobile: +1.310.339.4410</span></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt">office tel: +1.310.301.5800</span></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt">office fax: +1.310.823.8649</span></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"> </span></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt">Find out more about the GNSO by taking our i</span></span><span></span><a><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt">nteractive courses</span></span><span></span></a><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"> and visiting the </span></span><span></span><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers" target="_blank"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt">GNSO Newcomer pages</span></span><span></span></a><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt">.</span></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt"> </span></span><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt">Follow @GNSO on Twitter: </span></span><span></span><a href="https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO" target="_blank"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt">https://twitter.com/I<wbr>CANN_GNSO</span></span><span></span></a><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt">Follow the GNSO on Facebook: </span></span><span></span><a href="https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/" target="_blank"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt">https://www.facebook<wbr>.com/icanngnso/</span></span><span></span></a><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span></span><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/" target="_blank"><span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9.0pt">http://gnso.icann.org/en/</span></span><span></span></a><span><span lang="EN-US"></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><span lang="EN-US"> </span></span><span lang="EN-US"></span></p></div></div></div></div>
<br></div></div><span class="">______________________________<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/l<wbr>istinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</a><br></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>