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

Tue May 8 19:09:22 UTC 2018

While I nominally remain co-chair of this WG, control over it has essentially been assumed by the Chair of the GNSO Council via the Council Liaison, as the WG's authority is solely derived from Council.

I find it both ironic and sad that the WG was brought to a halt by Mr. Kirikos months ago because the co-chairs proposed to poll the full WG membership to initiate the consensus call process, and that he persisted in that appeal even after the co-chairs modified that proposal to assure that the poll would be conducted in a fully transparent matter -- yet now he has elected to conduct his own poll.

Mr. Kirikos has no authority under the GNSO WG Guidelines to conduct such a poll and its results have no official status.

I must also note that option 4 -- referral of any decisions on the IGO CRP matter to the RPM Review WG -- is fundamentally incompatible with any of the other options, which would make policy decisions now within the IGO CRP WG. Yet several members are supporting both option 4 and others. Whether that RPM WG will address IGO immunity issues specifically, or sovereign immunity issues more generally, and whether addressing that subject requires a Charter change, will be determined by its membership at the appropriate time.

The Recommended Next Steps contained in the "SUMMARY REPORT FROM THE GNSO COUNCIL LIAISON ON THE CURRENT STATUS OF CONSULTATIONS WITH THE IGO-INGO CURATIVE RIGHTS PDP WORKING GROUP (12 April 2018)" continue to be those that govern this WG as it comes to a conclusion.

I know that some members of this WG may wish to engage me in debate or dialogue regarding the above statement, but I shall have nothing further to say in advance of Thursday's call.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Bikoff, James
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2018 2:23 PM
To: George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>; gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Public Display of Possible Consensus

No on others.

James L. Bikoff | Attorney at Law

202-263-4341 Phone
202-263-4329 Fax
www.sgrlaw.com
jbikoff at sgrlaw.com

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

Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP

-----Original Message-----
From: George Kirikos [mailto:icann at leap.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2018 2:20 PM
To: Bikoff, James; gnso-igo-ingo-.
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Public Display of Possible Consensus

Thanks for posting, James.

Just for completeness, do you have a position (for/against) the other
5 options? I plan to make a table at some point, to summarize things, and don't want to have empty spaces. It could be yes/no/maybe/unsure, etc.

Sincerely,

George

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Bikoff, James <jbikoff at sgrlaw.com> wrote:
> I am also in favor of option 4.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> James L. Bikoff | Attorney at Law
>
> 202-263-4341 Phone
> 202-263-4329 Fax
> www.sgrlaw.com
> jbikoff at sgrlaw.com
>
> 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
> Suite 400
> Washington, D.C. 20007
>
> Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org]
> On Behalf Of David W. Maher
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2018 1:57 PM
> To: gnso-igo-ingo-.
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Public Display of Possible Consensus
>
>
> CAUTION: This email is from an external source. Do not click links or attachments unless it's from a verified sender.
> ________________________________
>
> My preferences are as follows:
> Option 1: Yes
> Option 2: No
> Option 3: No
> Option 4: Yes
> Option 5: No
> Option 6: No
>
> In general, I agree with Paul Keating's reasoning, with the minor exception that I would prefer Option 4 over Option 1 because Option 4 gives the IGOs an opportunity to have their voice heard.
> David Maher
>
> David W. Maher
> Public Interest Registry
> Senior Vice-President - Law & Policy
> +1 312 375 4849
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Paul Keating
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2018 8:18 AM
> To: Paul Keating <Paul at law.es>; George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>;
> gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Public Display of Possible Consensus
> Importance: High
>
> Having been asked by several people for my reasoning behind my votes, I thought I would simply post it openly.
>
> Option 1:  Yes.
>
> This is a simple solution that returns the process to a balance.  It leaves the IGO with the complete freedom of choice (just as it had in filing the UDRP).  The consequence (voiding the UDRP) is a simple and easily understood consequence of seeking the benefit of immunity AND does not bog us down in discussions as to whether immunity existed or whether it had already been waived by the IGO via the UDRP filing.
>
> Option 2:  NO.
>
> Although a nice attempt to seek compromise, I found it too confusing and feared it would lead to us becoming bogged down in discussion over details.
>
> Option 3:  NO.
>
> I am most opposed to the idea of this WG attempting to create any form of alternative dispute system.  This is more appropriately addressed by a wider and more fully functioning WG such as that addressing the RPM.
>
> Option 4:  YES.
>
> I am fully in favor of suggesting that the other WG handle this matter.
> They are a larger group with more professionals on board.  They are also experienced in tackling complex issues.  I know this because I am a member of both this and the RPM WG.
>
> Option 5:  NO.
>
> Issues of ³in rem² and declaratory relief are inherently common law principles and are not shared by many jurisdictions, including those based upon civil law (that which looks only to statutes and not to prior judicial decisions as the reference point).  This would require too much discussion by this WG to achieve true consensus as to what is or is not involved in turning this option into the more robust descriptions necessary.  Also, I have had no difficulty in dealing with post-UDRP claims based upon this distinction (suing a party or suing a thing).  I also am unsure if a US in rem action would be permitted to continue in the absence of an IGO that successfully asserted sovereign immunity.  So, overall, too complex for this WG given its directive.
>
> Option 6:  NO.
>
> I STRONGLY favor any form of mediation and have previously provided my thoughts and concerns over the Nominet program.  I ENCOURAGE Brian and anyone else (at either WIPO or NAF) to initiate such a program.
> Initiating such a program would not require any modification to to the UDRP as it could be entirely voluntary.  HOWEVER, to the extent that this Option 6 would require discussion and consensus surrounding the rules underlying an obligatory mediation program, such is beyond the scope of this WG and not likely to have a successful outcome, particularly given what has been transpiring in this WG to date.
>
> So, there you have my thoughts.
>
> I ENCOURAGE all WG members to respond to George¹s email regardless of your views.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Paul Raynor Keating, Esq.
>
> Law.es <http://law.es/>
>
> Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain)
>
> Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK)
> Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US)
>
> Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810
>
> Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450
>
> Skype: Prk-Spain
>
> email:  Paul at law.es
>
>
>
> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE.  THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED.  IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO  PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS.
>
>
>
> Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein.
>
>
>
> NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN
> ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH
> THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT
> AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT,
> NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 5/8/18, 2:36 PM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of Paul Keating"
> <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Paul at law.es> wrote:
>
>>All (and Mary),
>>
>>I have previously stated my position regarding these matters but am
>>growing concerned that my vote has not been counted in the ensuing
>>documentation that has been issued.
>>
>>To be VERY clear please note my voting as to the options as follows:
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------
>>
>>Name:  PAUL KEATING
>>Option 1:  Yes
>>Option 2:  NO
>>Option 3:  NO
>>Option 4:  YES
>>Option 5:  NO
>>Option 6:  NO
>>
>>Please note that my preference is for #1 (UDRP decision becomes void)
>>BUT I also want to be counted for #4 (referral to RPM WG).
>>
>>Thank you,
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Paul Raynor Keating, Esq.
>>
>>Law.es <http://law.es/>
>>
>>Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain)
>>
>>Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK)
>>Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US)
>>
>>Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810
>>
>>Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450
>>
>>Skype: Prk-Spain
>>
>>email:  Paul at law.es
>>
>>
>>
>>THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY
>>CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT
>>PRIVILEGE.  THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE
>>INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED.  IF YOU ARE NOT THE
>>INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU
>>ARE REQUESTED TO  PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS.
>>
>>
>>
>>Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department
>>rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice
>>contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or
>>intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for
>>the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or
>>any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any
>>other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending
>>to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein.
>>
>>
>>
>>NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN
>>ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH
>>THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT
>>AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT,
>>NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------
>>
>>
>>On 5/7/18, 8:42 PM, "Gnso-igo-ingo-crp on behalf of George Kirikos"
>><gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org on behalf of icann at leap.com> wrote:
>>
>>>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.ht
>>>m
>>>l
>>>
>>>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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> ________________________________
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> 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.
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp