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

Mike Rodenbaugh mike at rodenbaugh.com
Wed May 9 21:51:00 UTC 2018


I am in favor of Option 4, but would be ok with Option 1.  Opposed to all
the other options.

Thanks,
Mike

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:17 AM, 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.htm
> >>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180509/55500958/attachment-0001.html>


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