Mason's wording is very good. Do you guys think it would be worth building on Mason’s wording to try and ascertain if the GAC's proposed prohibition on UDRP changes is for substantive changes only or if they are seeking to prohibit procedural changes too? Yours sincerely, Paul On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Mason:
Given that you have the delicate task of interfacing with the GAC, I think your proposed minor modifications are fine.
Best, Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <202-255-6172>/cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* Mason Cole [mailto:mason@donuts.co] *Sent:* Wednesday, November 05, 2014 3:50 PM *To:* Phil Corwin *Cc:* gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique *Importance:* High
Phil --
In my capacity as liaison, let me suggest an edit or two in the bullet point in question that might give us better luck in getting some useful information from the GAC:
In regard to the issue of potential amendment of the UDRP – It would be instructive to know the GAC’s rationale for opposing any UDRP amendments as a means of providing IGOs with access to curative rights. Further, in opposing such amendments, does the GAC thus advise the GNSO to preclude any possible change to its "Mutual Jurisdiction" provisions to address specific sovereign immunity concerns of IGOs? Finally, if it is the GAC’s position that an entirely new curative rights mechanism must be created, is it the GAC's understanding that the protections afforded to qualifying IGOs under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention would be the criteria for establishing standing under any dispute resolution procedure that may apply to IGOs?
On Nov 5, 2014, at 11:56 AM, Phil Corwin wrote:
WG members:
Please find attached a revised draft letter to the GNSO Council regarding the LA GAC Communique that reflects our discussion earlier today.
The only changes are to the second bullet point on page 3.
PLEASE LET US KNOW IF THESE CHANGES ARE ACCEPTABLE WITHIN THE NEXT 24 HOURS. WE WANT TO FORARD THIS LETTER TO THE COUNCILL ASAP TO MAXIMIZE THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT WILL BE ADDED TO THE AGENDA FOR ITS MEETING NEXT THURSDAY.
Thanks in advance.
Best, Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597 <202-559-8597>/Direct*
*202-559-8750 <202-559-8750>/Fax*
*202-255-6172 <202-255-6172>/cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
<ICANN-IGO_INGO_CRWG-Letter to GNSO Council-LA_GAC_Advice-draft#2.docx>_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
*Mason Cole *
VP Communications & Industry Relations
Donuts Inc.
*……**……**……**……**……**……*
*……*
*……*
mason@donuts.co
Ofc +1 503 908 7623
Cell +1 503 407 2555
------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5315 / Virus Database: 4189/8462 - Release Date: 10/27/14 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp