[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] CONSENSUS CALL on the WG's Recommendations and Remaining Options
icann at leap.com
Thu Jun 7 21:24:42 UTC 2018
P.P.S. One additional important point I forgot to note in yesterday's
emails was that the list of recommendations was incomplete. In
particular, I believe there is full consensus AGAINST the proposed
model from the IGOs/GAC, having a separate DRP solely for them, etc.
Whether that should be an entirely separate recommendation (i.e. FULL
CONSENSUS AGAINST) as Recommendation #1-A (or Recommendation #6) or
whether it is instead incorporated as an element of Recommendation #1,
I leave to others to weigh in on, but it should be part of our report.
This had been raised orally multiple times on calls, but hadn't been
included in the document that was circulated a couple of weeks ago.
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 1:04 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> 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).
> George Kirikos
> 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