[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] CONSENSUS CALL on the WG's Recommendations and Remaining Options
icann at leap.com
Wed Jun 6 17:04:11 UTC 2018
P.S. I did some research on objective standards for fee waivers in
courts (might be suitable for a footnote in a final report!), and
found the standards for my own jurisdiction (Ontario, Canada), see:
As you can see, they have clear and objective financial tests (income,
household liquid assets, household net worth), that are needs-based.
And to be even clearer, IGOs wouldn't get fee waivers, because at the
very top of that page it says:
"You can request to have your court fees waived if:
you are not acting on behalf of a business or organization"
So, those court fee waivers are for solely for individuals, not
organizations (like IGOs).
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 11:33 AM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> Hi again,
> 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.
> George Kirikos
More information about the Gnso-igo-ingo-crp