[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Keeping the momentum moving forward -- the topic of subsidies for IGOs (rec #4)

[George Kirikos]

Hi folks,

Good call today. Let's keep the momentum moving forward
constructively. I think there are mixed opinions on the topic of ICANN
subsidizing UDRP/URS actions brought by IGOs (recommendation #4).

On principle, I'm opposed to ICANN subsidizing anyone's disputes (and
said so during the public comments to the initial draft report).
Others have said the same. I'm not sure there's a majority or
consensus. With ICANN's budgetary issues, it might also be an issue of
whether the money even exists (perhaps take it from GAC funding).

But let's see if we might be able to think outside the box.

On the call, I suggested one modification might be to make sure equal
funds are on both sides (e.g. if the IGO files a disputes, both its
fees and the fees of the respondent/registrant would be covered
equally). That would be better, in my view, than what's currently on
the table.

Another possibility, which creates linkage with other options for
different recommendations, might be the following. There's currently
quite a lot of support, given the emails of the past week, for Option
#1, and slightly less support for Option #6:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQrdpthCvFIGoECeVWbAuz315diOKXIj2JoO5XhLzk7C_9ariI3NKF8oOLt3PMsBIZg6JMXSvCiOANV/pubhtml

As a means of finishing things up cleanly and definitively now, and in
this PDP, rather than using Option #4 (which seems to be the most
popular), how about something like this: (I'll use the example from
Option #6)

- we know that mediation saves both sides money in UDRP/URS, as 30% of
the Nominet cases get settled
- take some of that money that is saved by both sides (i.e. a small
fee from them when there's successful mediation, i.e. a reduction in
otherwise rebated fees), and apportion it to the subsidization of IGO
UDRP/URS disputes (i.e. some money gets kicked backed to ICANN, a
little fund is created, e.g. $100/dispute in terms of settled cases
goes back to ICANN, to be redistributed via a fund for UDRP/URS
disputes brought by (qualified) IGOs (and both sides can be funded, if
the dispute is defended)
- we go with Option #1 (which is incorporated into Option #6 anyhow,
if the quirk of process gets encountered) as the solution to that
procedural quirk (if it goes to court, and if immunity is asserted
successfully, then both sides go back to square one, UDRP/URS result
is set aside, and they can fight it out from scratch without any
interference from ICANN's policies.
- one might add something like "if they take the subsidies, then
they're bound to...."

Anyhow, the above occurred to me during the call itself, but I wasn't
sure how to present it, so I thought I'd send it to the list. It's
kind of a "hidden tax" on mediation settlements, though, so obviously
objectionable from that aspect (trying to be pragmatic, though).

The complexity is that it intertwines the various options ---
representing a bit of "horse trading". But, it tries to get a
win/win/win out of things, in an attempt to move us forward.

One could have done the above without starting from Option #6 (just
starting from Option #1), but then one wouldn't have a pool of money
(i.e. generated from successfully mediated cases) to fund all this.
Otherwise, there'd need to be money from ICANN (which is already part
of Rec #4, but I doubt that money exists).

Anyhow, just something to contemplate. Might be way too complex. I
don't think we've explored "horse trading" between the different
recommendations before, to come to a global consensus (we kind of
talked about it in the RPM PDP, although at much earlier stage of that
PDP than where we are in this IGO PDP).

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/