[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
Reg Levy
rlevy at tucows.com
Tue Jun 12 17:43:16 UTC 2018
My apologies, Jim, Philip!! I definitely did not intend to misrepresent your votes.
It does, however, underscore, for me at least, the fact that we should be doing this—even informally—via a Doodle that makes it absolutely clear (a) what is being voted upon and (b) what the results are. Mary's clarification regarding the informality of this is instructive but it's clear that the responses were chaotic at best.
I am sorry for having missed the meeting just now, I had a conflict. I hope that it was productive and look forward to the summary of the meeting.
Best,
Reg
--
Reg Levy
Director of Compliance
Tucows
D: +1 (323) 880-0831
O: +1 (416) 535-0123 x1452
UTC -7
> On 11 Jun 2018, at 22:21, Bikoff, James <jbikoff at sgrlaw.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> <image63e638.JPG> <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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/ffd8cf7b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180612/ffd8cf7b/signature-0001.asc>
More information about the Gnso-igo-ingo-crp
mailing list