[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Revision to Voting by PRK Re: Public Display of Possible Consensus

Paul Keating Paul at law.es
Wed May 9 13:02:31 UTC 2018


All (and Mary)

I would like to modify my voting as to Option 6 to ³YES².  My vote(for the
purpose of the consensus conversation should thus be modified to the
following:

----------------------------------

Name:  PAUL KEATING
Option 1:  YES
Option 2:  NO
Option 3:  NO
Option 4:  YES
Option 5:  NO
Option 6:  YES

As to the modification, when voting initially, I had not considered that
this WG would only be making the suggestion that mediation programs be
adopted BUT that the actual drafting of any language required to implement
would be conducted by subsequent working groups, (i.e. that referenced in
#4).


As I have said during previous calls and in previous emails, 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. Thus, I
favor a recommendation by this WG that such a process be undertaken.  And,
if the subsequent WG do not adopted language for inclusion within the UDRP
or URS, no ADR would be precluded from initiating such a program on a
voluntary basis.


Paul Keating


On 5/8/18, 2:36 PM, "Paul Keating" <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.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




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