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

Fri Jun 15 09:17:20 UTC 2018

Dear Petter,

On Swaine I do not believe what you are proposing is acceptable. This isn’t
some minor matter for a minority opinion Swaine underpins the whole of the
working group’s final report. I have shown very clearly in plain language
how Swaine introduces horrendously complex issues which have absolutely no
relevance whatsoever to what the working group has been asked to consider.

Both Paul Keating & George Kirikos have both indicated they share my
concerns that Swaine can never be considered correct on this matter and in
the alternative no one has voiced any dissent to the expanded proof I
outlined. The only person to offer any comments has been Mary and she did
not address the core issue I was raising and has chosen so far not to
dispute or comment further on the expanded proof. (For completeness Phillip
said he was proud of Swaine)

You have chosen not to comment too. Do you also still personally believe
what I am saying is wrong and that Swaine can possibly be correct in his
findings?

If so please can you please explain to the working group how Swaine can
possibly be correct because the report fails to adequately acknowledge or
address the indisputable fact that IGOs automatically waive immunity every
time they commence a legal proceeding?

Yours sincerely,

Paul.

Expanded proof
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001310.html (.pdf
with colours)

Original proof
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001202.html (.pdf
with colours)

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 8:29 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
>
> 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
> 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/20180615/47e02648/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- 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/20180615/47e02648/attachment-0001.jpe>
-------------- 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/20180615/47e02648/attachment-0001.png>