[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
Corwin, Philip
pcorwin at verisign.com
Tue Jun 12 01:06:15 UTC 2018
Your designation of my position on Option 2 of Recommendation 5 as Y is incorrect. My only Y is for Option 3, I am N on all the rest.
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Reg Levy
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 5:34 PM
To: Petter Rindforth LLM <petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>
Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [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
All—
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:
Maher https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001214.html
Bikoff https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001217.html
Novoa https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001218.html
Kirikos https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001219.html
Corwin https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001223.html
Muscovitch https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001225.html
Cohen https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001228.html
Lerman https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001230.html
Chapman https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001231.html
Rindforth https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001232.html
Keating https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001233.html
Levy https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001234.html
Ondo https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001236.html
Tattersfield https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001237.html
And, using that, came up with the following matrix:
1
2
3
4
5
6
Maher
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Bikoff
Y
Y only if 1 has no support
Novoa
Y
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.
Best,
Reg
--
Reg Levy
Director of Compliance
Tucows
D: +1 (323) 880-0831
O: +1 (416) 535-0123 x1452
UTC -7
On 10 Jun 2018, at 09:38, Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu<mailto: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.
Best,
Petter
--
Petter Rindforth, LL M
<Mail Attachment.jpeg>
<Mail Attachment.png>
Fenix Legal KB
Stureplan 4c, 4tr
114 35 Stockholm
Sweden
Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>
www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu>
NOTICE
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<http://www.fenixlegal.eu>
Thank you
10 juni 2018 18:22:37 +02:00, skrev David W. Maher <dmaher at pir.org<mailto:dmaher at pir.org>>:
Petter:
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<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180612/ee360f21/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-igo-ingo-crp
mailing list