I had referenced a Supreme Court of Canada case in the chat during one of our calls, and it might be prudent to note some of the important points it made: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc66/2013scc66.html Note that this is from 2013, and thus is a good reflection of the state of the current law. Paragraphs 29-31 make an important distinction between immunities granted to states (discussed in paras 27-28) and those of international organizations: "[29] In the case of international organizations, unlike that of states, the prevailing view at present is that no rule of customary international law confers immunity on them. International organizations derive their existence from treaties, and the same holds true for their rights to immunities: H. Fox, The Law of State Immunity (2nd ed. 2008), at pp. 725-26. Such an organization must operate on the territory of a foreign state and through individuals who have nationality and is therefore vulnerable to interference, since it possesses neither territory nor a population of its own: Fox, at p. 724. This reality makes immunity essential to the efficient and independent functioning of international organizations. It also shapes the immunities and privileges that are granted to international organizations. Such immunities and privileges are created through a complex interplay of international agreements and the national law of host states. 30] International organizations vary greatly in size, sphere of activities and powers. This is reflected in the source and the scope of their immunities and privileges. For example, the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, 1 U.N.T.S. 15, and the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies, 33 U.N.T.S. 261, contain detailed provisions conferring broad immunities and privileges on the United Nations and its agencies. In addition to international conventions granting uniform immunities and privileges that apply in all member states, the most important international organizations such as the United Nations and its agencies also negotiate exhaustive and detailed headquarters agreements with host countries: see, e.g., Headquarters Agreement between the Government of Canada and the International Civil Aviation Organization, Can. T.S. 1992 No. 7, and the Supplementary Agreements of 1999 and 2013. [31] In the case of smaller international organizations, each organization must enter into an agreement with the host state regarding the immunities to be enjoyed in that state’s territory. Such is the case for NAFO. Article II of the Convention provides that NAFO is to come to an agreement with the contracting party (i.e. Canada) regarding the immunities and privileges it will enjoy in the territory of that party. NAFO and Canada reached an agreement in this regard, and it is reflected in the NAFO Immunity Order." I think that's an important point. In the case where an IGO does not have an agreement with a certain state in regards to immunities within that state's territory, it is clear that no such immunity actually exists! In the case at hand, involving the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, the extent of the immunity depended on the interpretation of the phrase "“to such extent as may be required for the performance of its functions” (see paragraph 39). In other words, immunity is not in any manner "absolute", but is determined in a case-by-case basis. Paragraph 49 made this clear: "[49] In limiting these immunities and privileges to the extent required for NAFO to perform its functions, the Governor in Council did not grant NAFO the absolute immunity conferred on the United Nations in the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations: P. Sands and P. Klein, Bowett’s Law of International Institutions (6th ed. 2009), at p. 494. Rather, the Governor in Council granted NAFO a functional immunity, that is, the immunity required to enable NAFO to perform its functions without undue interference." as did paragraphs 52 and 53: "[52] In my view, this same approach should be taken in determining the scope of the immunity granted to NAFO in the NAFO Immunity Order. The drafters of the NAFO Immunity Order adopted a functional approach to immunity, as can be seen from the very words they chose for s. 3(1): “to such extent as may be required for the performance of its functions”. [53] It follows that NAFO’s autonomy to conduct its business and the actions it takes in performing its functions must be shielded from undue interference. What is necessary for the performance of NAFO’s functions, or what constitutes undue interference, must be determined on a case-by-case basis." The Supreme Court of Canada in this case (appeal of lower courts) went on to determine that a claim involving a separation indemnity could proceed: "[67] In sum, no compelling reason exists for finding that s. 3(1) of the NAFO Immunity Order applies to the appellant’s claim with respect to the separation indemnity. This claim should be allowed to proceed." Note that the Court did *not* allow the employment aspect of the claim to proceed: "[58] This result would flow from the very nature of the appellant’s legal proceedings. In his statement of claim, he alleges that the Executive Secretary “engaged in improper management practices”: A.R., vol. II, at p. 13. He also seeks punitive damages. In doing so, he is asking the Nova Scotia Supreme Court to pass judgment on NAFO’s management of its employees. That, in my view, would constitute interference with NAFO’s internal management, which goes directly to its autonomy." While the case-by-case determination might differ in respect to a domain name dispute, I would find it hard to believe that a Canadian court would find that a dispute over a certain domain name would rise to the threshold required to *interfere* with an IGO's operations or autonomy. As was pointed out previously, paragraph 56 noted that there's no immunity in Canada over commercial activity of an IGO. I draw this case to the working group's attention again as a counterpoint to the position of the "expert" and his answers. This was a 9-0 decision from the highest court in Canada, with no dissenting position. If one reviews the decision, it not only cited Canadian Statutes and Regulations, it also cited international treaties (including UN treaties) and various authors, so I believe this decision to be authoritative, and one which we can and should rely upon to inform our work. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/