Hi folks, To followup on our meeting today, I did some checking in the online PACER database of US court cases, to help determine whether the "myth" that IGOs never waive immunity from national court processes was true. PACER allows one to search by the "nature of the suit", so I limited my searches to category 840 (trademarks). After trying various names of parties, I found 2 different cases that are relevant. In 1994, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (i.e. The World Bank) filed suit in Delaware against "World Bank Limited" and won a default judgment. In 1995, the United Nations Children's Fund (i.e. UNICEF) filed suit in the Southern District of New York against "Art '95", and the matter concluded with a consent judgment. PDFs of the dockets for both cases are attached (the underlying complaints/responses weren't available online, presumably because of the age of the cases). I think these 2 examples help to shatter the myth, given that the IGOs actually *brought* the cases to the courts, as plaintiffs! Why could they not do the same in a domain name dispute? This goes to the entire purpose of this working group. The "problem" that IGOs claimed to have was the lack of a curative mechanism for alleged infringements of their names and acronyms by others. If the UDRP didn't exist, it's clear that their only alternative would be via the courts. The fact that IGOs have brought trademark cases to the courts on multiple occasions demonstrates that as a viable option, just like it is for any other complainant. The existence of the UDRP is not a replacement for the courts. It gives complainants an *additional* option. No one forces complainants to file a UDRP -- they could have instead filed in court (where they'd be subject to the relevant court jurisdiction). IGOs have said they can't use the UDRP -- we've already shown examples of IGOs filing UDRPs. Presumably they wanted to use the UDRP, to avoid having to go to court, where they'd be subject to the court's jurisdiction thus conflicting with their claimed immunity. Well, now we have cases where they've gone to court! In conclusion, these cases help illustrate that IGOs should be treated the same as everybody else, and that no "special" rules need to be created for them. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/