"which provide an arbitration alternative for parties"
UDRP and URS are *not* arbitrations per se (true arbitration is granted judicial deference). For example, see:
http://www.balough.com/udrp-not-federal-arbitration/
"The court found that the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) does not qualify as an arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. (FAA) Under the FAA, decisions by an arbitrator can only be reversed by a federal court if there was misconduct by the arbitrator or a manifest disregard for the law."
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/published/021396.p.pdf
416-588-0269
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@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@digimedia.com> wrote:
I agree with George as well.
Jay
On Jun 10, 2015 8:35 AM, "Paul Keating" <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@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
>http://www.leap.com/
>
>
>On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Mary Wong <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
>> Email: mary.wong@icann.org
>>
>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>> 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@icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
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@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
www.waigf.org
www.aficta.org
www.itag.gm
www.npoc.org
http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
www.diplointernetgovernance.org
James L. Bikoff | Attorney at Law
202-263-4341 phone
202-263-4329 fax
www.sgrlaw.com
jbikoff@sgrlaw.com
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20007
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@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp