[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Public Display of Possible Consensus

[Nat Cohen]

Dear WG Members,

I'll include a personal comment that our work here has been hampered by the
lack of participation from the IGOs, on whose behalf this WG was formed.
Despite all the work, time and effort that this WG has devoted over many
years, we do not know whether any of the proposed options would actually
address the root concerns of the IGOs.  Indeed even if we adopted option 3,
which would lead the WG down a long, tortured path to try to develop an
arbitration system, if the IGOs maintain their resistance to participating,
we would still be left not knowing whether the final recommendations would
be deemed acceptable by the IGOs.  It seems better to refer the core issues
of jurisdiction and legal process to the RPM WG which enjoys more robust
representation from a variety of stakeholders and will need to address
these same issues as part of its work.

I support Option 4, and would also support continued exploration of Options
1, 2, 5, or 6, if one of those options attracted consensus support of the
WG.

Regards,

Nat Cohen


On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:19 PM, Zak Muscovitch <zak at muscovitch.com> wrote:

> Dear WG members, I confirm that I support Option 4, which I had earlier
> proposed to the WG, and would also support Options 1, 2, 5, and 6.
>
> Zak Muscovitch
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] On
> Behalf Of George Kirikos
> Sent: May-07-18 2:43 PM
> To: gnso-igo-ingo-.
> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Public Display of Possible Consensus
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Since there's been no response to the call for the true numbers to be
> posted:
>
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001140.html
>
> let's attempt to do this transparently. I believe we might already have a
> consensus.
>
> The 6 options (not mutually exclusive!) were at:
>
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-March/001093.html
>
> Briefly:
>
> Option 1: set aside the UDRP/URS decision, to put both sides back in the
> same position
>
> Option 2: use Option 1 for existing domain names, and Option 3 for newly
> created domains
>
> Option 3: arbitration
>
> Option 4: refer it to the RPM PDP
>
> Option 5: lock the domains in the event of an "in rem" lawsuit (not just
> "in personam")
>
> Option 6: mediation as a step, and then back to Option 1 if need be
>
> If you'd like to post your position/thoughts in an open and transparent
> manner, please do so in this thread, using the following template
>
> ----------------------------------
>
> Name:
> Option 1:
> Option 2:
> Option 3:
> Option 4:
> Option 5:
> Option 6:
>
> ----------------------------------
>
> For myself:
>
> Option 1: yes, I support this (ultimately my first choice)
>
> Option 2: yes, I can support this as a compromise
>
> Option 3: no, I can't support this
>
> Option 4: yes, I can support this; Paul Keating's prior suggestion of
> having Option 1 be the interim solution if Option 4 is
>
> Option 5: yes, I support this, and it works in parallel to all other
> options
>
> Option 6: yes, I support mediation
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> 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
> 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/20180507/cd9e296c/attachment.html>