[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Six Options: Weighing In

Paul Tattersfield gpmgroup at gmail.com
Wed May 9 23:24:47 UTC 2018

Option #1 Yes - As it is clearly the correct position given it is the IGOs
who are initiating proceedings, to expect it to be otherwise would be
diametrically opposed to the purpose of the mutual jurisdiction clause. I
only support option #1 if option #6 is not tenable.

Option #2 No - It just tries to mitigate some of the nonsense from option

Option #3 No – It is a ridiculously clumsy and theoretical attempted slight
of hand and if it had been proposed by anyone other than the co-chairs
there is no realistic way it would have ever gained traction.

Option #4 Yes - Like Reg I only support #4 if it helps reach consensus and
option #6 firstly or option #1 secondly are not tenable.

Option #5 No - Like Option #2 doesn’t work for everyone.

Option #6 Yes - This is the best option because it actually states the
correct position in that after initiating proceedings the IGOs are never
entitled to immunity. Sure they have rights if someone abuses their name
but jurisdictional immunity isn’t ever one of them.  But what sets option
#6 apart is it says the working group can actually do something to help the
IGOs and INGOs and thereby go some way to meeting GAC advice in providing a
fast free way  to settle 30% (based on Nominet’s experience)  of all future
IGO disputes in a consensual way that simply improves process to benefit
all parties.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180510/67ee7a09/attachment.html>

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