[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] [Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Our next meeting and Result of consensus Call: IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG meeting on Tuesday, 12 June 2018 16:00 UTC
rlevy at tucows.com
Mon Jun 11 21:34:27 UTC 2018
I had intended to knock this out on Sunday. After spending a few hours alone with your emails, I have renewed respect for the dizzying job of chair.
Part of the issue is we are voting on five things and one of those five has six options. It is wildly unclear what the call was actually for—and thus, what many people voted for. (For example, I did not weigh in on the five options at all and only the six of the fifth. And if that sentence made sense to you, you're way ahead of me.)
I am using the following as indicative of position:
And, using that, came up with the following matrix:
1 2 3 4 5 6
Maher Y N N N N N
Y only if 1 has no support
Kirikos Y N unless rephrased N N especially no subsidies Y Y
Corwin N Y Y N N N
Muscovitch maybe maybe maybe Y maybe maybe
Cohen Y Y with changes
Lerman Y Y N Y Y Y
Chapman Y Y Y Y Y only in part
Rindforth Y Y Y Y current version Y only in part
Keating Y N N Y N Y
Levy Y N N Y only if 1 has no support N
not without changes
Ondo Y 1
Tattersfield can live with not without changes can live with
1, 4, 6 (not 2, 3, 5)
To me, this indicates clear support for Option 1 (with only one no). However, as you can see, I kind of lost the thread of it near the end as people noted five rather than six options and then sometimes voted on five and six.
In any case, I think it is clear that we are confused and respectfully recommend that we set up a Doodle!!
I recommend that each "option" be completely spelled out in the question (not, "What is your support for Option 1" but "Here is the entire text of Option 1; what is your level of support?").
I recommend that each answer be as follows: Support, Can Live With, Do Not Support, and Support With Changes [text field for changes], Do Not Support Without Changes [text field for changes].
This would allow (a) clarity!! which we are all clearly in need of; (b) black-and-white answers for those who wish to give them; and (c) options including grey area for those who wish to make changes.
Director of Compliance
D: +1 (323) 880-0831
O: +1 (416) 535-0123 x1452
> On 10 Jun 2018, at 09:38, Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu> wrote:
> Thanks, David.
> I'll add it to that document.
> I'll wait closer to our meeting though, just to make sure that all WG members can check the list and notify of needed corrections related to their e-mailed positions.
> Petter Rindforth, LL M
> <Mail Attachment.jpeg>
> <Mail Attachment.png>
> Fenix Legal KB
> Stureplan 4c, 4tr
> 114 35 Stockholm
> Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
> E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu
> This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed.
> It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product.
> If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read,
> copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains.
> Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail.
> Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu
> Thank you
> 10 juni 2018 18:22:37 +02:00, skrev David W. Maher <dmaher at pir.org>:
>> You did not record the positions that I emailed on May 26:
>> I support the four recommendations. My support of recommendation 4 is reluctant; in principle I am not in favor of special treatment for any participant in a UDRP or URS proceeding. In this case, referral of the question to the IC ANN Board is an acceptable compromise that fulfills one of the group’s obligations under our charter.
>> I support Option 1. I understand staff’s concern “that resolving a procedural question (immunity from jurisdiction) can automatically reverse a substantive panel finding, where the court has not had (and will not have) the opportunity to hear the case on its merits.” This problem will only arise if an IGO takes advantage of a UDRP or URS proceeding and then hides behind immunity. It appears from this group’s discussions that IGOs have had few or no problems in supporting their names and acronyms in court and administrative proceedings. For future proceedings, I believe it is justifiable to bar IGOs from invoking an intrinsically unfair legal maneuver.
>> I do not support Options 2 and 3. I do not believe that the deliberations of this group have shown any need for a new procedure.
>> I do not support Option 4. I initially supported this option, but, on reflection, I believe our report and recommendations (assuming that Options 2-6 are not supported) fulfill our obligations under our charter, and there is no need for a referral to another WG.
>> I do not support Option 5. I have seen no evidence to support the need for a procedural rule that would have limited applicability in courts around the world.
>> I do not support Option 6. Adding mediation to the UDRP procedures should be a question for the RPM WG. The second sentence of this option appears to duplicate Option 1.
>> David W. Maher
>> Public Interest Registry
>> Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy
>> +1 312 375 4849
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
More information about the Gnso-igo-ingo-crp