With respect, I believe his statement in relation to Section 29 is somewhat misleading. The language of Section 29 explicitly states that it applies to disputes arising out of CONTRACTS TO WHICH THE UNITED NATIONS IS A PARTY. The United Nations is not a party to the domain name registration agreement for domain names that they deem to be infringing their rights (the only parties are the registrar and the registrant). I think the answer to question #1 is also incomplete, since it seems to be predicated on that existing contractual relationship, where an arbitration agreement already exists. It does not consider the broader classes of disputes, e.g. where someone in Toronto launches a cafe named "UNESCO" -- the UN agency named UNESCO (obviously??) can't compel that cafe owner to participate in an arbitration. A specific answer to that scenario should be provided, and more broadly, how they enforce their alleged rights in the offline world in cooperation with law enforcement, etc. Also, it seems he's unaware that the standard domain name registration agreement that IGOs (including the UN, for un.org) have entered into specify jurisdictions for 3rd party disputes, including acceptance of the UDRP! (i.e. a 3rd party owning a TM for "UN" could file a (frivolous) UDRP against the United Nations, and the United Nations would be compelled to defend it). Other than broad references and a few anecdotes, the 'answers' lack real rigour (e.g. no references to case law, precedents, etc.). Furthermore, they lack independence -- it's clear he's an advocate for the UN's positions, not an independent 3rd party with relevant experience and research in the area we are discussing. Personally, the 'answers' appear helpful only to the extent that they demonstrate that greater education/awareness is required. They certainly don't meet any threshold for justifying changes to the status quo. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear WG members,
We have received a response from Mr. Hans Corell, the international law expert to whom we had sent the list of questions on sovereign immunity, prepared in consultation with our WG co-chairs Petter and Phil. Mr. Corell is a former Swedish diplomat and was from 1994-2004 the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and Legal Counsel for the United Nations. He is presently an adviser to a number of international bodies, including ICANN and the International Bar Association, where he is the current Co-Chair of the Council of the Human Rights Institute. I attach a copy of his full CV to this email, but you can also see his professional biography and current appointments here: http://www.havc.se/PresentEngagements.htm and http://www.havc.se/res/SelectedMaterial/20140721shortbio.pdf.
In order to try to gain an initial understanding of the scope of the international legal principle of sovereign immunity as it applies to IGOs, we provided Mr. Corell with some basic background information into our work and the reason for asking the specific questions we enclosed. We did not, however, go into detail about the progress and workings of the WG, including our interaction with the IGOs – so you will see from his response that some of his comments are based on general rather than more specific information. You will see also that he has certain questions for the WG, which may be helpful avenues for follow up.
As such, staff thought that the WG may wish to discuss both Mr. Corell’s answers to the questions that were posed to him as well as possible follow-up action on the WG call this Wednesday. For instance, we could develop a subsequent set of questions that we can provide along with a note summarizing the IGOs’ position on the matter, so that he can provide us with more detailed input.
Please note that Petter and Phil have not yet had a chance to review Mr. Corell’s response. Do note also that representatives of the UN legal counsel were participants in the original IGO-INGO PDP WG that preceded our work, and I believe may also be represented in the IGO “small group” that sent us their January 205 response. As such, a further point for WG discussion may be how we follow up with the IGO “small group” after having reviewed their and Mr. Corell’s response.
For completeness I attach also a copy of the initial note and questions that were sent to Mr. Corell.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 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