[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

Tue Jun 12 05:21:15 UTC 2018

Reg, I do not support Option 3.

Jim

Sent from my iPad

James L. Bikoff<http://www.sgrlaw.com/attorneys/bikoff-james/> | Attorney at Law

202-263-4341 phone
202-263-4329 fax
www.sgrlaw.com<http://www.sgrlaw.com>
jbikoff at sgrlaw.com<mailto:jbikoff at sgrlaw.com>

1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20007

[cid:image63e638.JPG at 396d36d1.4b976daf]<http://www.sgrlaw.com> Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP

On Jun 12, 2018, at 4:06 AM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>> wrote:

CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Do not click links or attachments unless it's from a verified sender.
________________________________
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<mailto:petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>>
Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto: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

_______________________________________________
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

________________________________
Confidentiality Notice
This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180612/2c5f0c28/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image63e638.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 19424 bytes
Desc: image63e638.JPG
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180612/2c5f0c28/image63e638-0001.JPG>