[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE COMPLETE SURVEY to detect consensus on Options A, B or C

Mon Oct 16 22:38:11 UTC 2017

Thank you for sharing your views, George.

WG members are under no obligation to share how they marked the survey and are assured of complete confidentiality.

That said, I will share how I completed mine, which was exactly the opposite of you. WG members can accord my views whatever consideration they believe is merited, including none at all.

Option A - Do not support because it is DOA at GNSO Council. Those who participated in last week's webinar heard the current Chair of the Council opine that it "did not pass the smell test" and was likely to be rejected by Council. I have articulated my multiple substantive policy concerns for not supporting it many times, but the one that really stands out is having a WG that was charged by its Charter to assure effective access to CRP by IGOs recommending that UDRP policy and rules be altered so that IGOs, and IGOs alone, see the prior UDRP decision vitiated upon successfully asserting a judicial defense that results in case dismissal. That is why I have dubbed it "the Thelma and Louise option" -- because it will drive our Final Report off the cliff, and none of us have spent the last three years and then some working on this project for that sad and unnecessary result. Especially when the rest of the Report has strong consensus support, and this single remaining issue involves a situation that has never occurred and may never occur in the future.

Option B - Do not support because it is Option A in a more complex form, and likewise DOA.

Option C - Support enthusiastically because it is fair and balanced and consistent with our prior WG decisions that ICANN should not try to predetermine judicial outcomes or deny any party their legal rights. It preserves a domain registrant's access to a court of mutual jurisdiction when an IGO is the Complainant, and likewise permits an IGO to assert an immunity defense in that national court. And it improves the situation for registrants over the status quo because if and when an IGO is successful in that defense the registrant can still get a decision regarding the disposition of the domain in an arbitration forum that will decide the matter under the same national law that the appeal was brought under, whereas under current policy the registrant would have no further recourse and the adverse UDRP decision would be implemented. It also may result in more adverse UDRP rulings being appealed by registrants because it allows appeal directly to a lower cost and faster arbitration forum when both parties mutually agree to that route. While I cannot predict the outcome of any Council vote, I am personally confident that a Final Report containing Option C can receive its support, perhaps even by a supermajority vote that can help assure Board approval at the next stage of review.

Policymaking is about compromise and the art of the possible.

Best to all, Philip

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/Cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 5:41 PM
To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE COMPLETE SURVEY to detect consensus on Options A, B or C

Personally, after some thought, I think it would have been best for all responses to have been to the mailing list, so that all PDP members had equal and transparent access to the survey results (given ICANN is supposed to operate as transparently as possible). Is there a public link to the survey responses?

I already closed the survey, but here's my response, paraphrased from my best memory (others might want to post their views, too), is (no surprises here):

1.  "Support" --- first best option; ensures due process and supremacy of the legal system; initiation of a UDRP doesn't affect legal rights, regardless of who is the initiator (IGO or non-IGO complainant)

2. "Support" --- second best option, compared with "Option A". Takes into account that IGOs pushed for this review due to fears of cybersquatting in new gTLDs (although Option C would apply to newly created domains regardless of gTLD).

3. "Do Not Support" -- if the old Option #6 was *fully* incorporated into Option C (namely, registrars being instructed that they must freeze the domain name if a judicial review is sought "in rem" by the registrant, instead of just "in personam" as it is now the case), I might update to "I can live with this option", but "Option C" is still not fully fleshed out so I must vote "Do Not Support"

Sincerely,

George Kirikos

416-588-0269

http://www.leap.com/

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>> wrote:

> Dear Working Group members,

>

>

>

> At the direction of the co-chairs and with their approval, staff has

> prepared the following survey that we are asking all members to fill

> out by

> 1800 UTC on Monday 23 October. The purpose of the survey is to enable

> Phil and Petter to determine the level of preliminary consensus

> amongst all members for each of the three options under discussion,

> relating to the situation where a respondent has filed court

> proceedings against an IGO and the IGO has successfully claimed

> immunity in that court. As our open community session at ICANN60 will

> be devoted to a presentation and discussion of all our proposed final

> recommendations, it is important for Phil and Petter to know which option is the most preferred at this stage.

>

>

>

> Link to survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VCP8VKD

>

>

>

> Link to background materials: https://community.icann.org/x/64ZEB (you

> will find the slides used by Petter and Phil to present all the

> proposed final recommendations and options during the webinar last

> week, as well as the most current version of the Options A, B and C

> document, under Background Documents. Please be sure to review these

> to familiarize yourself with the full details of the three options).

>

>

>

> Please note that this survey is not intended to be a formal vote, nor

> does it replace the mandatory consensus call that will take place on

> all the final recommendations prior to our submission of the Final

> Report to the GNSO Council. The co-chairs currently expect the Working

> Group to finalize all recommendations following community feedback at ICANN60.

>

>

>

> Please raise any questions or concerns you may have to this mailing

> list before the survey closes on Monday 23 October.

>

>

>

>

>

> Thanks and cheers

>

> Mary

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list

> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>

> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

_______________________________________________

Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list

Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20171016/b9626b70/attachment.html>