My last post of the day (I promise). I think it's also important to note who exactly thinks that they are "above the law". One of those IGOs is WIPO, and I would encourage everyone to read about their DNA scandal at: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140709/11070027824/report-that-wipo-lawy... and in particular the accompanying PDF -- embedded in the article, but also at: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1213703-wipo-report-james-pooley.htm... for easy downloading. There are many interesting statements/claims, but I found it very interesting, and relevant to our work, that WIPO: 1. apparently believes that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't apply to itself (para 27) 2. has interesting standards of what constitutes "evidence" (see paras 29-37). This is especially important, given that the IGO small group talks about an extra-judicial procedure where the standard of proof is always open to interpretation. When looking at their own behaviour, they argue that certain matters/claims are not "substantiated", yet they put forth a standard for others where the proof must be "clear-cut" or with "no material open questions of fact" or "obvious risk".... 3. waived immunity (see paragraph 12). 4. works with legal authorities (e.g. para 10, when DNA evidence was taken to Swiss police) or threatens legal proceedings when attempting to intimidate bloggers: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140428/06585327048/shameful-wipo-threate... "In addition, I should like to remind you that under Swiss law, the publication of such false and defamatory material could constitute a criminal offence." ... Please be informed that if this request is not immediately acceded to, the Director General and WIPO will seek independent legal advise to bring defamation proceedings against you in any competent jurisdiction. " WIPO and other IGOs assert to our PDP that they worry about immunity, yet are quick to threaten use of the courts by themselves "in any competent jurisdiction." I would like to hear from the IGOs about this inconsistency, and what's stopping them from using the courts/laws/police for alleged trademark abuse, impersonation, fraud, etc. instead of alleged defamation or to investigate DNA? Let's suppose that instead of that material being published on techdirt.com, it was instead published on WIPODNASCANDAL.COM or WIPO.SUCKS (unregistered as of today). Is that the kind of domain that would be subject to their proposed procedures, if their intimidation tactics were unsuccessful? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/