[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] IGO-INGO; How to finalize our work and identify level of consensus

George Kirikos icann at leap.com
Fri Jun 15 08:58:47 UTC 2018

Hi Petter,

In response to your request for us to give feedback on these updated
consensus levels, and in line with my own previous independent analysis:


Rec #1: You say: Full Consensus: I agree (although we do have full
consensus re: IGOs too, about no creation of entirely separate dispute
resolution process, and I do think that should be made 100% clear via a
recommendation somewhere, instead of relying only on inner explanatory
text, to ensure that it's not brought up by IGOs 5 or 10 years from now, in
yet another PDP)

Rec #2 You say: No Consensus/Divergence: I agree (once the modified text is
put in)

Rec #3: You say: Consensus: I agree

Rec #4: You say: Strong Support but Significant Opposition: I agree


(i) Option #1: You say Consensus *or* Strong Support But Significant
Opposition: I would make it "Consensus". I am for Option #1 as the strong
preference over Option #4

(ii) Option #2: You say No Consensus/Divergence: I agree

(iii) Option #3: You say Minority View/Consensus Against: I agree

(iv) Option #4: You say No Consensus or Strong Support but Significant
Opposition: the level of support was measurably less than Option #1, and my
strong preference is for Option #1. If need be, I can just remove my
support for Option #4 (as I'm sure others might do the same), to drop
Option #4 down further, if that would help clarify the 2 options, since we
should just make a clear choice (amongst the options that are mutually

(v) Option #5: You say No Consensus/Divergence: I agree

(vi) Option #6: You say Strong Support but Significant Opposition: I
disagree, as I had this as "No Consensus/Divergence" (see the spreadsheet I
prepared); results might be different, though, if it was split out as a
separate recommendation *only* about mediation (without the linkage back to
Option #1 that is implicit in it)

By the way, there was no invitation sent out for a call next week (which
had been mentioned during our call on Tuesday). Was that still planned? If
so, it would be nice to get the invite as early as possible (to plan out
personal schedules for next week).


George Kirikos

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 3:29 AM, Petter Rindforth <
petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu> wrote:

> Dear Working Group members,
> In light of the need for us to complete our work, in my role as the Chair,
> I ask you all to now focus on the task at hand, which is to finalize
> agreement on the appropriate consensus levels for each recommendation. In
> this regard, please note the following:
> (1) I have put the most current, likely consensus levels here in this
> message and will appreciate further feedback;
> (2) we need now also to focus on discussing where we want to end up in
> relation to Option 1 and Option 4, which may be mutually incompatible; and
> (3) where you have made a suggestion on any specific point/topic but it
> has not received support, I ask that you consider filing a Minority
> Statement now rather than continue to argue the point.
> On consensus levels, and based on our call earlier this week and the more
> recent list discussions:
> *Recommendation 1:* Full Consensus (with additional text in the rationale
> about why this recommendation was phrased to cover INGOs, and noting that
> IGOs are covered by the remaining recommendations which nevertheless do not
> require changing the UDRP or URS beyond what may be necessary to effectuate
> those additional recommendations – I note that this last caveat may of
> course not be necessary if the group reaches consensus on Option 4 versus
> Option 1, as we are currently discussing).
> *Recommendation 2: *Consensus (with slight amendment to the
> recommendation text to reflect “trademark or service mark rights” where we
> mention “unregistered” rights).
> *Recommendation 3:* Consensus
> *Recommendation 4: *Strong Support but Significant Opposition (with
> additional text in the rationale to note that several members are strongly
> against subsidies of any sort).
> *Recommendation 5/Options 1-6* (which we can renumber/title in the Final
> Report to avoid confusion):
> Option 1 – Consensus or Strong Support but Significant Opposition
> Option 2 – No Consensus/Divergence
> Option 3 – Minority View (Consensus Against)
> Option 4 – Consensus or Strong Support but Significant Opposition
> Option 5 – No Consensus/Divergence
> Option 6 – Strong Support but Significant Opposition
> *On reconciling Options 1 & 4:*
> If, from the above tentative consensus listing, the group agrees that
> either Option 1 or Option 4 has sufficient consensus (but not the other),
> there will not be a conflict. Please therefore weigh in with your thoughts
> on the current consensus levels for these two options. I have seen some
> informal notes from WG members that support both Option 1 and Option 4,
> clarifying that they prefer Option 1 before Option 4, but please make such
> statements/clarification again.
> Similarly, if we end up with Strong Support but Significant Opposition for
> both, we can just transmit both to the Council without the need for further
> discussion (but possibly with text that can include implementation guidance
> for Option 1).
> For Option 1 – this will require a change to the UDRP and URS, so if this
> is the final consensus position, staff will add draft text to the report
> with implementation guidance.
> *On Minority Statements:*
> 1) As Susan suggested on the call, Paul Tattersfield may want to consider
> filing a Minority Statement in regard to the Swaine memo, as despite
> several emails on the topic over the last month or two and on the Working
> Group calls, there has not been much support to remove the memo from the
> report.
> 2) Similarly, those who support recommendations/options that end up as
> either No Consensus/Divergence or Minority View should consider preparing
> Minority Statements (as I believe Phil has already indicated he may do).
> Thank you to all who are contributing to a productive discussion. I ask
> that we refrain from questioning others’ credibility or credentials, stop
> bringing up old threads and posts again, and focus on getting to the final
> consensus. We had a good, friendly and effective call this Tuesday – let us
> continue that way also online!
> Best regards,
> Petter
> --
> Petter Rindforth, LL M
> 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
> www.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
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> 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/20180615/2c6f3a9a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 6210 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180615/2c6f3a9a/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 20169 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180615/2c6f3a9a/attachment-0001.jpe>

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