[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] CONSENSUS CALL on the WG's Recommendations and Remaining Options

Alex Lerman alexlerman at alexlerman.com
Thu Jun 7 22:38:58 UTC 2018

My preference has not changed. To restate:

My vote is as follows:

Option 1: Yes
Option 2: Yes
Option 3: No
Option 4: Yes
Option 5: Yes
Option 6: Yes

Please note that among all the Options, I favor Option 4 above the others.

Alexander Lerman

On 06/07/2018 02:24 PM, George Kirikos wrote:
> 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.
> Sincerely,
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
> 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:
>> https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/feewaiver/index.php
>> 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).
>> SIncerely,
>> George Kirikos
>> 416-588-0269
>> http://www.leap.com/
>> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 11:33 AM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>>> Hi again,
>>> In my prior email,
>>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001219.html
>>> 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.
>>> Sincerely,
>>> George Kirikos
>>> 416-588-0269
>>> http://www.leap.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

More information about the Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list