[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] CONSENSUS CALL on the WG's Recommendations and Remaining Options
icann at leap.com
Wed Jun 6 15:33:40 UTC 2018
In my prior email,
it looks like I omitted a sentence when I was copying/pasting things
into my email client, from my text editor. In particular, when I was
writing about evidence-based policymaking in the context of subsidies:
> If we are to be engaging in evidence-based policymaking (and that
> should be the standard), then that is evidence we should not be
> ignoring (i.e. the inability to show that the costs are too high).
> Furthermore, we know from the Swaine report that IGOs have used the
> UDRP numerous times, so that too is evidence that the fees haven't
> been a barrier to the past usage of the UDRP (and the fees for the URS
> are much lower). See:
I should have prefaced the above with a sentence:
"We asked the GAC to provide feedback to us about whether the fees for
UDRP/URS procedures were at levels that were not justified, and did
not receive evidence from them."
That would have been what I was referencing when I wrote about the
"inability to show that the costs are too high", i.e. since we
specifically asked for evidence from the GAC about that.
More information about the Gnso-igo-ingo-crp