<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:"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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
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.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></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="MsoPlainText"><a name="_MailEndCompose">I disagree.<o:p></o:p></a></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">Recommendation 1 reads: "1. No changes to the UDRP and URS are to be made, and no specific new process created,
<b>for INGOs</b> (including the Red Cross movement and the International Olympic Committee)."
<i>(Emphasis added)</i><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">It refers only to private sector INGOs, and not multilateral IGOs, and is not in conflict with any changes to the UDRP and URS proposed for IGOs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">Philip S. Corwin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">Policy Counsel<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">VeriSign, Inc.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">12061 Bluemont Way<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">Reston, VA 20190<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">703-948-4648/Direct<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">571-342-7489/Cell<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose">"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<span style="mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose"></span>
<p class="MsoPlainText">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: George Kirikos [mailto:icann@leap.com] <br>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 9:54 PM<br>
To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com><br>
Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<br>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] CONSENSUS CALL on the WG's Recommendations and Remaining Options</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Phil: I was referencing the relationship between RECOMMENDATION 1 (should have made that clearer in the prior email to you, where I wrote Option #1 accidentally in the first paragraph, but actually quoted RECOMMENDATION 1). [as an aside,
we might want to in the future label them Recommendation A, Recommendation B, Recommendation C, Recommendation D, and Recommendation E, and then keep the numeric options for Recommendation E; or, do it the other way around] Sorry for the confusion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Recommendation #1 says "No changes to the UDRP".<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">But, in recommendation #5, all the various options, except for Option #4, would make changes to the UDRP. That was the point I was trying to make. As you'll see in the coming spreadsheet/PDF of my own separate analysis of initial consensus
level designations (I'll be starting a brand new thread, watch for it very shortly), this was picked by me and Zak and others in relation to Recommendation #1.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">With regards to your own statement re: Options #1 and Options #4 (all within Recommendation 5), I disagree with your analysis. I won't waste time here elaborating (want to send off my Consensus Designation Analysis to the list), but
am happy to elaborate later if you wish.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Let me know. [It'll be moot, in any event, as I don't expect both Option #1 and Option #4 to both achieve consensus in this PDP, at least from what I can tell based on my analysis --- see my next email in a new thread]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">George Kirikos<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">416-588-0269<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="http://www.leap.com/"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://www.leap.com/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 9:22 PM, Corwin, Philip <<a href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">pcorwin@verisign.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> George:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> As you invoked my name in regard to the relationship of Options 1 and 4 on Recommendation 5, let me make my position clear -- they are in irreconcilable and irreparable opposition. One cannot, with any claim to consistency, favor
the creation of an exception to the UDRP regarding the effect of a court case dismissal that treats IGOs (and, by implication all nation-states possessing valid claims to sovereign immunity) differently than all other Complainants, and simultaneously declare
the IGO immunity should be evaluated in a broader context by another WG to consider all possible implications before any significant amendment to the UDRP is made. That circle cannot be squared.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Philip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Philip S. Corwin<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Policy Counsel<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> VeriSign, Inc.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> 12061 Bluemont Way<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Reston, VA 20190<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> 703-948-4648/Direct<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> 571-342-7489/Cell<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> -----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> From: George Kirikos [<a href="mailto:icann@leap.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">mailto:icann@leap.com</span></a>]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 3:31 PM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> To: Corwin, Philip <<a href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">pcorwin@verisign.com</span></a>><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Cc: <a href="mailto:jbikoff@sgrlaw.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">jbikoff@sgrlaw.com</span></a>;
<a href="mailto:ncohen@telepathy.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">ncohen@telepathy.com</span></a>;
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> <a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] CONSENSUS CALL on the WG's
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Recommendations and Remaining Options<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Phil: it's actually much worse than what you said (and reinforces my call to give more time to clean up things in the next few weeks, to get a final document for the July GNSO Council meeting). See the prior email I sent to Jim where
I put in my own "support" for Option #1 the proviso that:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001219.html">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001219.html</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> "1] Recommendation #1: I generally agree with the current draft text.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> However, let me be more precise. To the extent that recommendation #4 makes changes to how a UDRP/URS decision is treated by registrars due to the procedural "quirk of process" we've identified, then those "changes" are permitted.
i.e. some folks might perceive Recommendations #1 and #4 to be in conflict, depending on the meaning of "no changes". The "changes" that are made aren't being made to the 3-prong test, etc., but instead to how any decision should be dealt with in the event
that the scenario which leads to the quirk of process is realized."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Because, you're absolutely right. As currently drafted, read literally, Recommendation #1 kills off not just Recommendation #5's Option #1, but also Option #2, Option #3, Option #5 and Option #6! (it obviously has no impact on Option
#4). So, I agreed with the "intent of Recommendation #1, but not really its actual current text.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> That's why we need enough time to closely re-read everything, to
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> prevent glaring mistakes. Remember when we caught that bad mistake
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> where we had recommended subsidies for INGOs, which was inconsistent
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> with what he had decided was lack of future consideration of INGO
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> issues?!?!?! (and that had been long after the report submitted for
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> public comment! i.e. it was disovered last year),<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> This has happened in other PDPs where there was a rush job, and mistakes ended up being made (that had to be corrected). e.g see:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg/2015-June/date">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg/2015-June/date</span></a>.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> html<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> where they had a "Final Report" on June 12:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg/2015-June/00068">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg/2015-June/00068</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> 8.html<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> and were congratulating each other, etc., but then 8 days later there's a long thread:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> "URGENT Correction to Recommendation 4 - REPLY NEEDED!"<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg/2015-June/00069">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg/2015-June/00069</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> 4.html<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> where changes needed to be made, etc. Embarrasingly:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg/2015-June/00069">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-contactinfo-pdp-wg/2015-June/00069</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> 9.html<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> "I was there during the presentation to the GNSO Council when this was discovered."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> I don't want this group to be in that situation. Let's agree to give ourselves the time to get the job done right.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> George Kirikos<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> 416-588-0269<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> <a href="http://www.leap.com/"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://www.leap.com/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Jim, I’d have to look at the URS, but I know that the UDRP provides
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> that if an appeal lawsuit is dismissed the prior UDRP decision will be implemented.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> So how could recommendation #1 be given effect without an amendment
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> to that part of the UDRP?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Best, Philip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Philip S. Corwin<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Policy Counsel<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> VeriSign, Inc.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> 12061 Bluemont Way<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Reston, VA 20190<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> 703-948-4648/Direct<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> 571-342-7489/Cell<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org</span></a>]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> On Behalf Of Bikoff, James<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 2:23 PM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> To: Nat Cohen <<a href="mailto:ncohen@telepathy.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">ncohen@telepathy.com</span></a>><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-. <<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</span></a>><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] CONSENSUS CALL on the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> WG's Recommendations and Remaining Options<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> All, please understand my position in support of recommendation 1
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> that no change to UDRP or URS or special procedure is warranted.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> No support for other recommendations.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Jim<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Sent from my iPhone<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> James L. Bikoff | Attorney at Law<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> 202-263-4341 phone<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> 202-263-4329 fax<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> <a href="http://www.sgrlaw.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">www.sgrlaw.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> <a href="mailto:jbikoff@sgrlaw.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">jbikoff@sgrlaw.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Suite 400<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Washington, D.C. 20007<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> On Jun 11, 2018, at 9:05 PM, Nat Cohen <<a href="mailto:ncohen@telepathy.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">ncohen@telepathy.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Do not click links or
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> attachments unless it's from a verified sender.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> ________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Dear WG members,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> While it will likely be sorted out eventually, I'd like to clarify
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> that my comments regarding Option #3 were not intended to be viewed
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> as supporting that option.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> I wrote in support of Zak's comments, who stated as to Option #3 that
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> "I cannot support it in its present form".<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Similarly while I see a theoretical possibility that option 3 could
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> be structured in a way that I could support, I cannot support it in
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> the absence of a concrete proposal whose merits can be evaluated. In
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> my view the defects in the UDRP would first have to addressed, either
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> through the RPM WG or through creating an IGO-specific UDRP that
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> better safeguarded domain owners. But as that has not yet been
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> fleshed out, or even proposed as far as I'm aware, it would be premature to express support for option #3.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> I write now in part because, due to a conflict, I will not be able to
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> participate on tomorrow's call.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Nat Cohen<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 3:33 PM, Nat Cohen <<a href="mailto:ncohen@telepathy.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">ncohen@telepathy.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Dear WG Members,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> I write in support of Zak's positions, and add the following
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> comments-<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Option #1 should work well for IGOs whether they realize it or not.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> It is quite rare for a UDRP decision to be challenged in court. The
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> practical effect of Option #1 is to enable IGOs to avail of the UDRP
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> either directly, or through an agent, and if they win to obtain the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> transfer of the disputed domain in the likely 90%+ of the instances
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> where the decision is not challenged. Since in most jurisdictions it
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> is quite expensive to file in a national court, a domain owner is
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> only likely to file if he/she believes the domain name has
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> substantial inherent value unrelated to an IGO's use - which is just
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> the sort of domain that likely should not be ordered transferred through a UDRP.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> IGOs are not being singled out for punitive treatment. IGOs are
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> requesting special treatment and for the ability to subject domain
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> owners to a flawed and biased quick-and-dirty proceeding without the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> possibility of judicial recourse. To assert a domain owner's right
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> to judicial review is not punitive towards IGOs.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Option #3 - if a procedure was created that genuinely resulted in
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> transfers only in cases of blatant cybersquatting, and that
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> adequately protected the rights of domain investors - which the UDRP
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> does not - then I would be open to giving it strong consideration.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Nat Cohen<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:23 PM, Zak Muscovitch <<a href="mailto:zak@muscovitch.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">zak@muscovitch.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Dear WG members:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Further to the below request for a response to the consensus call,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> please see my below response:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> I generally support Recommendation #1. I would clarify however, that
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> no “substantive” changes are required (i.e. thereby leaving open the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> possibility of procedural changes).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> I generally support Recommendation #2, with the caveat that an IGO
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> can demonstrate its rights by showing common law or unregistered
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> rights in a name, for which 6ter compliance can be used.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> I generally support Recommendation #3, and would add that if any
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> procedural adjustments are required to provide greater clarity, that
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> would be consistent with my suggested revision to Recommendation #1.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> I generally support Recommendation #4, however I would note that any
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> exploration of feasibility for providing subsidies to increase access
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> to justice, should be means tested and should not necessarily be
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> restricted to IGO’s, and I would convey this thought in the Recommendation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> I support Option 4 of Recommendation #5, which I had proposed
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> compromise solution in the absence of universal agreement on which
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Recommendation this WG makes. I realize that it is not an ideal
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> outcome, but it attempts to balance the perspectives of those who
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> support Option 1, with those that think that a substantial revision
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> to the Policy is required to accommodate IGO interests. In the latter
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> case, such changes IMHO would necessarily have to be undertaken
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> within the broader mandate of the RPM WG which will be looking at the UDRP as a whole.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> I do however, support Option 1 in principle, though I suggest that
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> the word, “vacated” be used instead of “vitiated”. The reason for my
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> support of Option<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> 1 in principle, is that as Mr. Tattersfield has pointed out on
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> numerous occasions, any IGO that commences civil legal proceedings
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> against any stranger for any matter, would necessarily as a matter of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> course, implicitly waive the jurisdictional immunity that it
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> otherwise has, and I see no reason that the UDRP should be any different.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> I would also support Option 2, as it would be an interesting and
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> reasonable compromise that would drive potentially better policy making.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> I understand Option 3 and appreciate the objective and rationale
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> behind it, although I cannot support it in its present form.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Nevertheless, it is a creative solution and attempted compromise. My
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> concerns with it are substantial and twofold;<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> a) Any party that commences a civil legal proceeding of any kind
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> against a stranger ipso facto voluntarily and implicitly waives
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> immunity if they have it to begin with, and Option 3 attempts to
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> allow IGO’s to at once avail themselves of the UDRP procedure without
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> giving up their immunity – which as aforesaid – is unjustifiable IMHO
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> since it allows ‘sucking and blowing’ at the same time. Furthermore,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> registrants have a well founded right to go to court, which they
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> understandably do not want to give up, nor should they be compelled
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> to give it up, particularly since being subjected to the UDRP in the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> first place involved a grand bargain wherein they would not lose the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> right to go to court; and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> b) Notwithstanding the foregoing objections, I can nevertheless see
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> how this solution could in principle provide a remedy to this
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> intractable situation which inevitably pits the rights of IGO’s
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> against the rights of registrants (as Dr. Swaine pointed out), but to
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> effect a solution such as this, there would have to be substantial
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> safeguards for the rights of registrants in terms of the nature of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> the arbitration, such that it would be an attractive trade-off for
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> losing (what many registrants consider to be) the inalienable right
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> to go to court to protect one’s rights and assets, and as presently
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> envisioned I am not satisfied that is the case. As such I am unable
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> to support it. For example, a registrant having to go to court to
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> fight of an immunity claim, or for that matter, an IGO having to go
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> to court to make an immunity claim following a UDRP, seems like an
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> unnecessarily burdensome step for both parties, albeit likely rare.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Moreover, the nature of the proposed arbitration at this time is
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> insufficiently clear and therefore provides me with an insufficient basis for considering it to be an adequate substitute for court proceedings.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> If however, I did see a procedure and arbitration framework which
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> provided sufficient comfort and attractiveness such that it was a
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> reasonable and justifiable alternative for registrants in exchange
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> for their right to go to court, that is something that I would further consider.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> I would also support Option 5, which would provide a creative way of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> allowing a court action without necessarily naming an IGO, however I
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> am uncertain as to whether in rem actions are universally available
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> in all jurisdictions.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> I would also support Option 6 in principle, as mediation can
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> potentially solve many disputes, not just for IGO’s but for UDRP
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Complainants and Respondents generally. I am uncertain however, where
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> the funding would come from.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Yours truly,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Zak Muscovitch<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org</span></a>> On
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Behalf Of Steve Chan<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Sent: June-05-18 12:02 PM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> To: <a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] CONSENSUS CALL on the WG's
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Recommendations and Remaining Options<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Dear WG Members,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> This message is to remind you all that your response to the consensus
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> call, initiated on 25 May, must be sent to the email list by Friday,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> 8 June in order for it to be taken into proper account in the WG
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Chair’s assessment of consensus levels. Please see the original message below for further details.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Note, due to availability issues, we are expecting to move the WG’s
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> next meeting, originally intended for Thursday, 14 June, to Tuesday,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> 12 June. You can anticipate receiving a meeting invitation in the near future.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Steve<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org</span></a>> on
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> behalf of Steve Chan <<a href="mailto:steve.chan@icann.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">steve.chan@icann.org</span></a>><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Date: Friday, May 25, 2018 at 3:19 PM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> To: "<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</span></a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</span></a>><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] CONSENSUS CALL on the WG's
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Recommendations and Remaining Options<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Dear WG Members,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Attached, please find the compilation of the Working Group’s
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> recommendations and six (6) options related to Recommendation 5. This
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> message is intended to kick of the consensus call process for the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> WG’s recommendations and remaining options under Recommendation 5.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> For those WG members who wish to participate in the consensus call,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> we ask that you respond on the email list to note your support or
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> non-support for all recommendations (i.e., recommendations 1-4) AND
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> the six (6) remaining options under recommendation 5. Please provide your response on or before Friday, 8 June.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Subsequently, the WG Chair will consider response to the consensus
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> call and seek to designate final consensus levels on the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> recommendations and options, which will be published to the WG’s
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> email list for WG consideration. WG members will then have the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> opportunity to object to the designations and the WG may choose to
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> conduct another call on Thursday, 14 June to discuss; WG members will
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> also have the opportunity to file minority statements if applicable,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> which will be incorporated into a Final Report for the Council by 17 June.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Note, based on the discussion on the WG’s call held on Friday, 25
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> May, a handful of changes were made to the attached <o:p>
</o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> recommendations/options document, highlighted in yellow (e.g.,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Recommendation 2, Recommendation 4, Option 4). In addition, footnotes
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> were added, linking to the original rationale and suggestions made by
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Zak Muscovitch (Option 4), George Kirikos (Option 5) and Paul
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Tattersfield (Option 6). The same was not done for the first three
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> options as those had been discussed extensively before the additional
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> three options were added and are included unchanged from the text presented in the October 2017 poll.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> If you have any questions, please let us know.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Steve & Mary<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Steven Chan<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Policy Director, GNSO Support<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> ICANN<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> <a href="mailto:steve.chan@icann.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">steve.chan@icann.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> mobile: +1.310.339.4410<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> office tel: +1.310.301.5800<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> office fax: +1.310.823.8649<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://gnso.icann.org/en/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> _______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> <a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> _______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> <a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> ________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Confidentiality Notice<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> This communication may contain information that is proprietary,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> _______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> <a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp">
<span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>