[Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: Review Revised Final Report - DUE Thursday 17 December at 18:00 UTC

[Emily Barabas]

Hi Paul,

The following will be added as a footnote:

"The Working Group does not endorse any particular pre-arranged contractual remedy, but rather states the range of potential remedies.  The term "pre-arranged" is used to ensure that the possible remedies are documented in the appropriate contract. For example, in a dispute between two parties that is resolved by an RVC, the settlement agreement would contain which dispute provider would hear the dispute, would require that the parties be bound by the decision, and would set forth the potential remedies that ICANN could impose upon the Registry if the dispute provider found a violation. ICANN will not have to create a remedy for the violation, but rather it will be able to select from a list of options provided in the contract."

Kind regards,
Emily

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>
Date: Thursday, 17 December 2020 at 17:56
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: Review Revised Final Report - DUE Thursday 17 December at 18:00 UTC

Thanks Jeff.  I think simply including what you wrote below “The intention…contractual options.” in the deliberation section or a footnote would do the trick.

Best,
Paul


From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff at jjnsolutions.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 8:18 AM
To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org; Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
Subject: RE: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: Review Revised Final Report - DUE Thursday 17 December at 18:00 UTC

Paul,

The intention was not to endorse any particular remedies, but rather to state the range of potential remedies.  And be pre-arranged, the intention there was to make sure that whatever the remedies were, that the possibilities were documented in the appropriate contract.  So, in a dispute between 2 parties that is resolved by an RVC, the settlement agreement would contain which dispute provider would hear the dispute, would require that the parties be bound by the decision , and would set forth the potential remedies that ICANN could impose upon the Registry if the dispute provider found a violation.  This way ICANN was not making up what the remedy would be, but rather selecting from the contractual options.

If you think there is a better way to word that, please suggest some language.

I hope that makes sense.

Jeff

[cid:image001.png at 01D6D4B5.0AE0C4C0]

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
p: +1.202.549.5079
E: jeff at jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff at jjnsolutions.com>
http://jjnsolutions.com



From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D.
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 3:39 PM
To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>; gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: Review Revised Final Report - DUE Thursday 17 December at 18:00 UTC

Hi Jeff,

Just a quick question on page 48 where it states “…to enforce a pre-arranged contractual remedy, which could include sanctions and/or termination of the Registry Agreement.”

I don’t recall any discussion of the WG on what remedies there should be for alleged breaches of PICs and RVCs, but this language seems to me to be endorsing sanctions and terminations.  Even so, it refers back to “pre-arranged” so maybe that is what you meant, but it is not clear who would pre-arrange those.  Can you explain what this language is meant to do?  If it is meant to endorse those particular remedies, I don’t think that actually reflects any work we did and I think that language should be deleted from the draft.  Thanks!

Best,
Paul






This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 3:52 PM
To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] FW: Review Revised Final Report - DUE Thursday 17 December at 18:00 UTC

Resending per request.

From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Emily Barabas <emily.barabas at icann.org<mailto:emily.barabas at icann.org>>
Date: Tuesday, December 15, 2020 at 10:06 AM
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Review Revised Final Report - DUE Thursday 17 December at 18:00 UTC

Dear WG Members,

Please see for review the attached revised draft Final Report in Word and PDF, along with the Log of Final Report Action Items and Edits.

The redlines in the attached revised draft Final Report reflect the edits made by leadership and support staff on the following:

  *   Actions agreed to by the WG during the WG meeting held on 14 December 2020, as noted in the Log with page references.  These actions also were captured during the meeting and circulated to the WG.
  *   Proposed edits to Topic 23: Closed Generics and Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments based on recent Working Group discussions.

The redlines do not include any edits based on Topical Email 10, because the deadline for comments on this email has not yet passed. If any edits are made, they will be included in the next redline.

Note: In reviewing the revised draft Final Report WG members are requested to limit their review to the redlines in the revised draft Final Report, and to focus only on errors and/or omissions, if any.  If any errors/omissions are noted please send them to the WG email distribution list, referencing the page number and text, respectively.

Please submit comments to the list, if any, not later than Thursday 17 December at 18:00 UTC.

Kind regards,
Emily


Emily Barabas
Policy Manager, GNSO Policy Development Support
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976
www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20201217/85afd478/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9616 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20201217/85afd478/image001-0001.png>