June 2015 - Gnso-igo-ingo-crp

Next WG conference call?
by George Kirikos July 7, 2015

July 7, 2015

Are we having a call next week (i.e. July 1, 2015)? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

3 5

Agenda for WG meeting during ICANN53 this week
by Mary Wong June 24, 2015

June 24, 2015

Dear all, Due to the WG¹s meeting occurring during ICANN53 in Buenos Aires, Petter and Phil would like to conduct the session as an open meeting involving the community. As such, the proposed agenda for the meeting on Wednesday 24 June, from 10.00-11.30 a.m. Argentina time (ART) (1300-1430 UTC) is: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Status report to community on WG preliminary recommendation regarding standing to file a curative rights complaint, with Q&A 3. Status report to community on WG progress on IGO immunity issue, with Q&A 4. Open discussion 5. Next steps Details about the meeting location and remote participation can be found here: http://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-igo-ingo-crp-access Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

3 2

FW: Int'l Orgs Expert
by Bikoff, James June 20, 2015

June 20, 2015

Phil, Petter and all, Attached are bios on two possible experts on sovereign immunity. Mr. Bellinger, in particular, seems extremely qualified on the subject. I would be happy to talk to him initially since the lead came from a mutual colleague. Let me know. I regrettably will not be in BA but have a productive meeting and some good Argentine beef and wine. Jim James L. Bikoff<http://www.sgrlaw.com/attorneys/profiles/bikoff-james/> | Attorney at Law 202-263-4341 phone 202-263-4329 fax www.sgrlaw.com<http://www.sgrlaw.com> jbikoff(a)sgrlaw.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgrlaw.com> 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007 [cid:imageb4de1d.JPG@e4604407.45ae17fa]<http://www.sgrlaw.com> Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP ________________________________ 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.

2 1

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June
by Paul Keating June 12, 2015

June 12, 2015

Jim, Excellent edits. I agree with them entirely with the exception of the following comments. Your Comment 1. I think is important guidance that making it clear that litigation is an available option at any time and that panelists are not required to stay or dismiss a UDRP/URS in favor of litigation. As an aside, while I have not seen such treatment following a UDRP, I do note that in the DRS realm, post DRS litigation is prohibited by the decision in the Emirates case. Your Comment 2. I think it may be important to the expert that IGOs affirmatively seek trademark-like protection under the Convention. In fact we may also point out they are of course free to formally register marks under national laws AND that they may also assert common law t trademark rights in the context of a UDRP. Thus, perhaps we co ild add something such as the following: "IGOs also remain free to pursue traditional trademark registration under national registration systems. In the UDRP context, a complainant may rely upon either a registered trademark or common law trademark rights. Your Comment 3. Excellent point. I think the question duplicates the 1st and should be deleted. Our only concern is the UDRP/URS context. Whether or not immunity is waived by merely asserting trademark rights in a (non-UDRP/URS) demand is not relevant to our work. Regards, Paul From: "Bikoff, James" <jbikoff(a)sgrlaw.com> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015 11:48 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June > > Hello all, > > Attached are our suggestions. As it appears that most, if not all, of us agree > with comments made by Paul, we’ve based our comments on his version. > > Regards, > > Jim > > > From:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org > [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Poncelet Ileleji > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:28 AM > To: Jay Chapman > Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda and documents for next WG call on > Wednesday 10 June > > > Same here I concur with George > Kind Regards > Poncelet. > > > > > > On 11 June 2015 at 14:25, Jay Chapman <jay(a)digimedia.com> wrote: > I agree with George as well. > > Jay > > On Jun 10, 2015 8:35 AM, "Paul Keating" <Paul(a)law.es> wrote: > I agree with George on these which is why my suggested revisions removed > these proposed questions. > > PRK > > On 6/10/15 2:09 PM, "George Kirikos" <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: > >> >For point/question #3, in particular: >> > >> >"What if the Mutual Jurisdiction requirement specified that, to apply >> >to IGOs, it has to be a jurisdiction of one of its member states?" >> > >> >I don't see how this could ever be acceptable to registrants. For >> >example, for a North American registrant using a North American >> >registrar, an IGO consisting of member states from Iran, Iraq, Syria >> >and Turkey might place the "mutual jurisdiction" in one of those 4 >> >countries that have absolutely nothing to do with the registrant, >> >rather than in North America. >> > >> >The same would apply to the rest of point #3, i.e. allowing the IGO to >> >"forum shop" by selecting a jurisdiction of a member state. For a >> >court to even have jurisdiction over a registrant, there must be some >> >connection to the underlying dispute and parties. That has normally >> >been (a) location of registrant, (b) location of registrar, or (c) >> >location of registry operator. >> > >> >I know these are just 'exploratory' questions, but I don't see why any >> >legitimacy should be attached to ad hoc proposals like the above by >> >submitting them to 'experts' in the first place. This should be about >> >fact-finding, not an informal 'negotiation' with IGOs. >> >Conclusions/solutions should flow from the facts. Putting out possible >> >'solutions' first, and then trying to come up with some 'rationale' to >> >justify them later is the wrong way to do things, in my opinion. >> > >> >Sincerely, >> > >> >George Kirikos >> >416-588-0269 <tel:416-588-0269> >> >http://www.leap.com/ > > >> > >> > >> >On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> wrote: >>> >> Dear WG members, >>> >> >>> >> The proposed agenda for our next meeting, scheduled for Wednesday 10 >>> >>June, >>> >> is as follows: >>> >> >>> >> Roll call/updates to SOI >>> >> Discuss and finalize questions for independent legal expert (see >>> >>attached >>> >> for draft document from the WG co-chairs) >>> >> Planning for WG meeting in Buenos Aires/next steps >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> It may be that we will not need the full hour; however, Petter and Phil >>> >> would like the group to have this call prior to the open meeting we are >>> >> scheduled to have in Buenos Aires, on Wednesday 24 June at 10.00 a.m. >>> >>ART >>> >> (local time). For those WG members who will not be present in Buenos >>> >>Aires, >>> >> the usual remote participation facilities will be available, and we¹ll >>> >>send >>> >> call-in and other details prior to the date. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks and cheers >>> >> Mary >>> >> >>> >> Mary Wong >>> >> Senior Policy Director >>> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >>> >> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 <tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889> >>> >> Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >>> >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp >> >_______________________________________________ >> >Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >> >Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp > > > > -- > > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS > Coordinator > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio > MDI Road Kanifing South > P. O. Box 421 Banjul > The Gambia, West Africa > Tel: (220) 4370240 > Fax:(220) 4390793 > Cell:(220) 9912508 > Skype: pons_utd > www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm> > www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org> > www.aficta.org <http://www.aficta.org> > www.itag.gm <http://www.itag.gm> > www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org> > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 > www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org> > > > > > > James L. Bikoff <http://www.sgrlaw.com/attorneys/profiles/bikoff-james/> | > Attorney at Law > > > 202-263-4341 phone > 202-263-4329 fax > www.sgrlaw.com <http://www.sgrlaw.com> > jbikoff(a)sgrlaw.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgrlaw.com> > > > 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. > Suite 400 > Washington, D.C. 20007 > > > <http://www.sgrlaw.com> Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP > > > > 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(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

3 3

Fwd: FW: Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June
by Bikoff, James June 12, 2015

June 12, 2015

Paul and George, Points well taken. Also, we support the additional language proposed by Paul. Begin forwarded message: From: Paul Keating <Paul(a)law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>> Date: June 12, 2015 at 8:24:59 AM EDT To: "Bikoff, James" <jbikoff(a)sgrlaw.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgrlaw.com>>, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June Jim, Excellent edits. I agree with them entirely with the exception of the following comments. Your Comment 1. I think is important guidance that making it clear that litigation is an available option at any time and that panelists are not required to stay or dismiss a UDRP/URS in favor of litigation. As an aside, while I have not seen such treatment following a UDRP, I do note that in the DRS realm, post DRS litigation is prohibited by the decision in the Emirates case. Your Comment 2. I think it may be important to the expert that IGOs affirmatively seek trademark-like protection under the Convention. In fact we may also point out they are of course free to formally register marks under national laws AND that they may also assert common law t trademark rights in the context of a UDRP. Thus, perhaps we co ild add something such as the following: "IGOs also remain free to pursue traditional trademark registration under national registration systems. In the UDRP context, a complainant may rely upon either a registered trademark or common law trademark rights. Your Comment 3. Excellent point. I think the question duplicates the 1st and should be deleted. Our only concern is the UDRP/URS context. Whether or not immunity is waived by merely asserting trademark rights in a (non-UDRP/URS) demand is not relevant to our work. Regards, Paul From: "Bikoff, James" <jbikoff(a)sgrlaw.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgrlaw.com>> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015 11:48 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June Hello all, Attached are our suggestions. As it appears that most, if not all, of us agree with comments made by Paul, we’ve based our comments on his version. Regards, Jim From:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Poncelet Ileleji Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:28 AM To: Jay Chapman Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June Same here I concur with George Kind Regards Poncelet. On 11 June 2015 at 14:25, Jay Chapman <jay(a)digimedia.com<mailto:jay@digimedia.com>> wrote: I agree with George as well. Jay On Jun 10, 2015 8:35 AM, "Paul Keating" <Paul(a)law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>> wrote: I agree with George on these which is why my suggested revisions removed these proposed questions. PRK On 6/10/15 2:09 PM, "George Kirikos" <icann(a)leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: >For point/question #3, in particular: > >"What if the Mutual Jurisdiction requirement specified that, to apply >to IGOs, it has to be a jurisdiction of one of its member states?" > >I don't see how this could ever be acceptable to registrants. For >example, for a North American registrant using a North American >registrar, an IGO consisting of member states from Iran, Iraq, Syria >and Turkey might place the "mutual jurisdiction" in one of those 4 >countries that have absolutely nothing to do with the registrant, >rather than in North America. > >The same would apply to the rest of point #3, i.e. allowing the IGO to >"forum shop" by selecting a jurisdiction of a member state. For a >court to even have jurisdiction over a registrant, there must be some >connection to the underlying dispute and parties. That has normally >been (a) location of registrant, (b) location of registrar, or (c) >location of registry operator. > >I know these are just 'exploratory' questions, but I don't see why any >legitimacy should be attached to ad hoc proposals like the above by >submitting them to 'experts' in the first place. This should be about >fact-finding, not an informal 'negotiation' with IGOs. >Conclusions/solutions should flow from the facts. Putting out possible >'solutions' first, and then trying to come up with some 'rationale' to >justify them later is the wrong way to do things, in my opinion. > >Sincerely, > >George Kirikos >416-588-0269<tel:416-588-0269> >http://www.leap.com/ > > >On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: >> Dear WG members, >> >> The proposed agenda for our next meeting, scheduled for Wednesday 10 >>June, >> is as follows: >> >> Roll call/updates to SOI >> Discuss and finalize questions for independent legal expert (see >>attached >> for draft document from the WG co-chairs) >> Planning for WG meeting in Buenos Aires/next steps >> >> >> It may be that we will not need the full hour; however, Petter and Phil >> would like the group to have this call prior to the open meeting we are >> scheduled to have in Buenos Aires, on Wednesday 24 June at 10.00 a.m. >>ART >> (local time). For those WG members who will not be present in Buenos >>Aires, >> the usual remote participation facilities will be available, and we¹ll >>send >> call-in and other details prior to the date. >> >> Thanks and cheers >> Mary >> >> Mary Wong >> Senior Policy Director >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889<tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889> >> Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd www.ymca.gm<http://www.ymca.gm> www.waigf.org<http://www.waigf.org> www.aficta.org<http://www.aficta.org> www.itag.gm<http://www.itag.gm> www.npoc.org<http://www.npoc.org> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 www.diplointernetgovernance.org<http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org> James L. Bikoff<http://www.sgrlaw.com/attorneys/profiles/bikoff-james/> | Attorney at Law 202-263-4341 phone 202-263-4329 fax www.sgrlaw.com<http://www.sgrlaw.com> jbikoff(a)sgrlaw.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgrlaw.com> 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007 <http://www.sgrlaw.com> Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP ________________________________ 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(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp James L. Bikoff<http://www.sgrlaw.com/attorneys/profiles/bikoff-james/> | Attorney at Law 202-263-4341 phone 202-263-4329 fax www.sgrlaw.com<http://www.sgrlaw.com> jbikoff(a)sgrlaw.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgrlaw.com> 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007 [cid:image313fe7.JPG@dc920481.408daf7b]<http://www.sgrlaw.com> Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP ________________________________ 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.

1 0

FW: Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June
by Bikoff, James June 12, 2015

June 12, 2015

Hello all, Attached are our suggestions. As it appears that most, if not all, of us agree with comments made by Paul, we’ve based our comments on his version. Regards, Jim From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Poncelet Ileleji Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:28 AM To: Jay Chapman Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June Same here I concur with George Kind Regards Poncelet. On 11 June 2015 at 14:25, Jay Chapman <jay(a)digimedia.com<mailto:jay@digimedia.com>> wrote: I agree with George as well. Jay On Jun 10, 2015 8:35 AM, "Paul Keating" <Paul(a)law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>> wrote: I agree with George on these which is why my suggested revisions removed these proposed questions. PRK On 6/10/15 2:09 PM, "George Kirikos" <icann(a)leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: >For point/question #3, in particular: > >"What if the Mutual Jurisdiction requirement specified that, to apply >to IGOs, it has to be a jurisdiction of one of its member states?" > >I don't see how this could ever be acceptable to registrants. For >example, for a North American registrant using a North American >registrar, an IGO consisting of member states from Iran, Iraq, Syria >and Turkey might place the "mutual jurisdiction" in one of those 4 >countries that have absolutely nothing to do with the registrant, >rather than in North America. > >The same would apply to the rest of point #3, i.e. allowing the IGO to >"forum shop" by selecting a jurisdiction of a member state. For a >court to even have jurisdiction over a registrant, there must be some >connection to the underlying dispute and parties. That has normally >been (a) location of registrant, (b) location of registrar, or (c) >location of registry operator. > >I know these are just 'exploratory' questions, but I don't see why any >legitimacy should be attached to ad hoc proposals like the above by >submitting them to 'experts' in the first place. This should be about >fact-finding, not an informal 'negotiation' with IGOs. >Conclusions/solutions should flow from the facts. Putting out possible >'solutions' first, and then trying to come up with some 'rationale' to >justify them later is the wrong way to do things, in my opinion. > >Sincerely, > >George Kirikos >416-588-0269<tel:416-588-0269> >http://www.leap.com/ > > >On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: >> Dear WG members, >> >> The proposed agenda for our next meeting, scheduled for Wednesday 10 >>June, >> is as follows: >> >> Roll call/updates to SOI >> Discuss and finalize questions for independent legal expert (see >>attached >> for draft document from the WG co-chairs) >> Planning for WG meeting in Buenos Aires/next steps >> >> >> It may be that we will not need the full hour; however, Petter and Phil >> would like the group to have this call prior to the open meeting we are >> scheduled to have in Buenos Aires, on Wednesday 24 June at 10.00 a.m. >>ART >> (local time). For those WG members who will not be present in Buenos >>Aires, >> the usual remote participation facilities will be available, and we¹ll >>send >> call-in and other details prior to the date. >> >> Thanks and cheers >> Mary >> >> Mary Wong >> Senior Policy Director >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >> Telephone: +1 603 574 4889<tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889> >> Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd www.ymca.gm<http://www.ymca.gm> www.waigf.org<http://www.waigf.org> www.aficta.org<http://www.aficta.org> www.itag.gm<http://www.itag.gm> www.npoc.org<http://www.npoc.org> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 www.diplointernetgovernance.org<http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org> James L. Bikoff<http://www.sgrlaw.com/attorneys/profiles/bikoff-james/> | Attorney at Law 202-263-4341 phone 202-263-4329 fax www.sgrlaw.com<http://www.sgrlaw.com> jbikoff(a)sgrlaw.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgrlaw.com> 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007 [cid:image2d866a.JPG@217274ec.478529f6]<http://www.sgrlaw.com> Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP ________________________________ 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.

3 2

Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June
by Mary Wong June 11, 2015

June 11, 2015

Dear WG members, The proposed agenda for our next meeting, scheduled for Wednesday 10 June, is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Discuss and finalize questions for independent legal expert (see attached for draft document from the WG co-chairs) 3. Planning for WG meeting in Buenos Aires/next steps It may be that we will not need the full hour; however, Petter and Phil would like the group to have this call prior to the open meeting we are scheduled to have in Buenos Aires, on Wednesday 24 June at 10.00 a.m. ART (local time). For those WG members who will not be present in Buenos Aires, the usual remote participation facilities will be available, and we¹ll send call-in and other details prior to the date. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org

8 7

MP3 IGO WG - Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 1600 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine June 10, 2015

June 10, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group call on Wednesday, 10 June 2015 at 1600 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-crp-access-10jun15-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXz…> On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar><http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#apr><http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#may>http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jun><http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#may>j<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jun>un<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jun> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: George Kirikos - Individual Petter Rindforth – IPC Phil Corwin – BC Val Sherman - IPC Jim Bikoff – IPC Paul Tattersfield - Individual Osvaldo Novoa - NCUC Mason Cole – RySG Kathy Kleiman - NCUC Lori Schulman – IPC Rudi Vansnick – NPOC Poncelet Illeleji - NPOC Apologies: Mike Rodenbaugh ICANN staff: Mary Wong Steve Chan Julia Charvolen Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/97rhAg Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Wednesday, 10 June 2015: Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, welcome to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP WG Meeting on the 10 June 2015 George Kirikos:Hello. George Kirikos:I noticed Charvolen.com is unregistered. Julia should grab it. George Kirikos:At under $15/yr, it's a no-brainer. George Kirikos:Although, I was unsuccessful in convincing Petter to get his surname .com. :) Julia Charvolen::) Petter Rindforth:Well, at least it is a registered trademark :-) Nathalie Peregrine:Rudi Vansnick has joined the call Nathalie Peregrine:Osvaldo Novoa has also joined Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all Mary Wong:Hello Osvaldo! Mary Wong:Welcome also to Rudi Rudi Vansnick:thanks ... hello all Rudi Vansnick:joining here as NPOC member Kathy:Hi All, sorry to be a little late George Kirikos:The mailing list lags a bit, so if Jim emailed, it might take an hour to appear to members. Rudi Vansnick:i've been reading through the document and from a point of view of iNGO's (NPOC => NGOs) i do not see any objection to the letter Lori Schulman:I am on. Thanks. Rudi Vansnick:would this also apply to INGO's ? George Kirikos:No, we've stopped talking about INGOs. Lori Schulman:passcode? George Kirikos:"IGO" for phonecall. Mary Wong:@Lori, IGO Lori Schulman:got it. George Kirikos:1-866-692-5726 for US/Canada callers. Lori Schulman:I used CRP. Slow day. Lori Schulman:@Rudy - immunity issues do not appy to NGO's they are governed by different legal structures Rudi Vansnick:@Lori : thanks for clarification Rudi Vansnick:@Lori : could it be that an IGO can overrule a decision on an INGO ? George Kirikos:IGOs aren't forced to use the UDRP. It's a voluntary tool for them. They could still use whatever tools the law allows. Petter Rindforth:As everybody else George Kirikos:So, the IGOs still have the benefit of whatever the existing law is, in terms of enforcement mechanisms. If they opt not to use that extra tool (with the rights/obligations that tool entails), they're not prejudiced in any way. Lori Schulman:@ Rudy - short answer -- no. Rudi Vansnick:@George: in some countries laws are to weak to protect their rights ... so i would consider the UDRP being a real good solution George Kirikos:Just like copyright holders can't use the UDRP -- they're not prejudiced by not being able to use the UDRP, for their legal scenarios. Mary Wong:Like anyone else, an IGO that seeks redress in a national court would have to see which rights under that national law may have been allegedly infringed, e.g. they may need to have a national TM right in that country. George Kirikos:Yes, Mary. So, the UDRP isn't meant to grant rightsholders more relief than national laws permit. George Kirikos:So, if they couldn't find relief in the national courts, the UDRP should not be providing *more* relief. Mary Wong:Yes, it is an optional alternative to litigation for any complainant (whether an IGO or not). Mary Wong:i.e. a procedure that allows enforcement of an exisitng legal right, not a new or additional one. George Kirikos:Right. UDRP is intended to be a short-cut to get the same relief they'd have received in courts. George Kirikos:There are all kinds of injustices in the world that the courts don't handle. It's not our job to handle every injustice in the world. Petter Rindforth:And the UDRP is also meant for "easy" disputes, where there is no need to meet the parties, to make further investigations or for the Panel to make legal conclusions from business agreements, etc George Kirikos:I think a clean version of Paul's document will be much shorter (right now it appears long, due to the visible edits). George Kirikos:Right, Petter. Kathy:I like the vast majority of Paul's changes. What I don't understand is his deletion of Question 2, which I thought was valuable: 2. To the best of your knowledge, how do IGOs handle standard contractual clauses (e.g. in software or services agreements) concerning submission to a particular jurisdiction? Is it common practice, for example, for IGOs to insist on binding arbitration instead? George Kirikos:Kathy: it's still there, see #4. Petter Rindforth:@Kathy: I agree with that George Kirikos:(just moved down a bit) George Kirikos:(we're on page 6 of the PDF) Kathy:@George, tx! Mary Wong:Thanks, Phil Lori Schulman:I was thinking maybe we could say "rights in source identifiers" Mary Wong:We can't (for purposes of this PDP) assume that all qualifying IGOs (under 6ter) would have national TMs, though. Mary Wong:@Lori, that may be better George Kirikos:Just like they submit to a jurisdiction when they register a domain name! George Kirikos:(every registrar agreement) George Kirikos:Except for maybe .int domains. :-) Petter Rindforth:And trademarks for the UDRP does not have to be registered, that may "only" be well-known George Kirikos:June 30 Lori Schulman:Yes, common law rights are recognized in UDRP George Kirikos:Should ICANN issue a public RFP, so we can get applications for this? George Kirikos:(that would also publicize things in a more formal manner) Lori Schulman:That was my question, how do we find these people? Mary Wong:@George, we can check but I'm not sure this is how we normally deal with this sort of treques Lori Schulman:I have a colleague who is an expert in international law and arbitration. He is semiretired George Kirikos:Thanks Mary and Phil. Mary Wong:@Lori, I have been reaching out to law professors Lori Schulman:I was going to offer to reach out Mary Wong:@Lori, I'll touch base with you after this? Lori Schulman:OK Lori Schulman:I am back on the phone. George Kirikos:+1 Jim Petter Rindforth:Making it easy for us ;-) Kathy:And reminder of the concern of the request for a permanent TM notification... Kathy:by the IGOs Mary Wong:Thanks, Jim ... :) George Kirikos:I think we can draw adverse inferences from their lack of responses. Lori Schulman:I agree. The silence is deafening. George Kirikos:It's like a witness asked a "hard" question in a cross-examination, and refusing to answer. Kathy:Tx Phil, Tx Petter, tx All! George Kirikos:i.e. the true facts in their control, which would answer our questions, are unfavourable to their position, so they'd rather not provide those facts. George Kirikos:Have a nice day, everyone. Bye. Rudi Vansnick:bye have a nice day, see you in BA Lori Schulman:Hasta La Vista!

1 0

Deadline for comments to draft letter/questions on IGO immunity
by Mary Wong June 10, 2015

June 10, 2015

Dear WG members, As noted on the WG call that was just held, please submit any further comments that you or your group may have regarding the proposed set of questions on IGO immunity by 1700 UTC tomorrow (Thursday 11 June). This will allow the WG co-chairs and staff to collate your comments and prepare a final draft for circulation by next week. As such, if you have limited time, we would suggest that you focus on the specific questions in the document. For your convenience, I attach the following: (1) the original draft as proposed by the WG co-chairs; and (2) a clean (all suggested revisions accepted) version of Paul Keating¹s edited version. Thanks to George, Jim and Paul for their helpful suggestions, both on the call today and via email. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org -----Original Message----- From: George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 09:18 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: Suggestions and revisions to proposed letter >I generally agree with the proposed revisions suggested by Paul >Keating. A few small tweaks might be: > >1. page 1: the UDRP Rules have been updated slightly since 1999, to >reflect electronic filing and to clarify locking of domains during a >dispute, so the link should be to either: > >https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rules-be-2012-02-25-en (current) > >or > >https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/udrp-rules-2015-03-11-en (which >takes effect shortly) > >2. one might add on page 2, in addition to "without in-person hearings >or oral testimony", that it's without Discovery and without >cross-examinations of parties/witnesses, either. > >Sincerely, > >George Kirikos >416-588-0269 >http://www.leap.com/ > > > >On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Paul Keating <Paul(a)law.es> wrote: >> >> >> From: Paul Keating <paul(a)law.es> >> Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 2:10 PM >> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> >> Cc: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> >> Subject: Suggestions and revisions to proposed letter >> >> Dear Mary and Phil, >> >> Thank you for sending out the original. It obviously shows a great >>deal of >> work. Please do not consider my suggestions as an affront to the hard >>work >> that went into the original draft. >> >> Attached please find my suggested revisions to the proposed letter >>seeking >> legal advice. In most cases I was attempting to provide more >>specificity >> and avoid any expression pif opinion other than the historical >>consensus of >> the WG. For example, we have no direct communications from IGOs >>regarding >> this issue. Instead we are relying entirely upon what ICANN has told us >> that they have said to the GAC. >> >> In other matters, I have imbedded several comments but not in each >> instance. >> >> For example, I removed much of the part about the Ter-6 process. First, >> under the UDRP/URS, a complainant need only show a trademark in 1 >> jurisdiction. Thus it is not relevant that the US, for example, may not >> recognize an IGO trademark it is sufficient if one Convention >>signatory >> does. Second, the process by which WIPO notifies, etc is not really >>germane >> to the immunity issue. >> >> I have also removed the language referencing any "appeal" as the UDRP >>has no >> such mechanism and the "appeal" process in the URS is purely internal in >> nature and is not relevant to the issue of litigation immunity. >> >> I have also removed the language referencing post-UDRP litigation as >>rare. >> This should not enter into the scope of our assessment. >> >> As to the questions, I had some major issues in that they seemed to be >> extremely leading in nature and structured in a way that would encourage >> "book writing" and not the more pointed advice we are seeking. >> >> The attached is redlined and the specific changes can be seen by >>altering >> the presentation format of the document. I would appreciate your >> circulating this among the WG members. >> >> There are lots of suggested changes and I hope it is not all overboard. >> I >> am reminded of the joke that given the Bible and a red pen, any lawyer >>will >> make changes. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Paul Raynor Keating, Esq. >> >> 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(a)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 >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp >_______________________________________________ >Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list >Gnso-igo-ingo-crp(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

1 0

FW: Suggestions and revisions to proposed letter
by Paul Keating June 10, 2015

June 10, 2015

From: Paul Keating <paul(a)law.es> Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 2:10 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Cc: Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com> Subject: Suggestions and revisions to proposed letter > Dear Mary and Phil, > > Thank you for sending out the original. It obviously shows a great deal of > work. Please do not consider my suggestions as an affront to the hard work > that went into the original draft. > > Attached please find my suggested revisions to the proposed letter seeking > legal advice. In most cases I was attempting to provide more specificity and > avoid any expression pif opinion other than the historical consensus of the > WG. For example, we have no direct communications from IGOs regarding this > issue. Instead we are relying entirely upon what ICANN has told us that they > have said to the GAC. > > In other matters, I have imbedded several comments but not in each instance. > > For example, I removed much of the part about the Ter-6 process. First, under > the UDRP/URS, a complainant need only show a trademark in 1 jurisdiction. > Thus it is not relevant that the US, for example, may not recognize an IGO > trademark it is sufficient if one Convention signatory does. Second, the > process by which WIPO notifies, etc is not really germane to the immunity > issue. > > I have also removed the language referencing any "appeal" as the UDRP has no > such mechanism and the "appeal" process in the URS is purely internal in > nature and is not relevant to the issue of litigation immunity. > > I have also removed the language referencing post-UDRP litigation as rare. > This should not enter into the scope of our assessment. > > As to the questions, I had some major issues in that they seemed to be > extremely leading in nature and structured in a way that would encourage "book > writing" and not the more pointed advice we are seeking. > > The attached is redlined and the specific changes can be seen by altering the > presentation format of the document. I would appreciate your circulating > this among the WG members. > > There are lots of suggested changes and I hope it is not all overboard. I am > reminded of the joke that given the Bible and a red pen, any lawyer will make > changes. > > 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(a)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 >

2 1