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@law.es> wrote:
From: Paul Keating <paul@law.es> Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 2:10 PM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: Phil Corwin <psc@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@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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp