I understand the need for diplomacy and the politics involved however I am concerned that the proposals before the working do not articulate the correct equtable and legal position. We need to make it very clear, no matter how unpalatable the position, that the IGOs would not be entitled to immunity when initiating proceedings in any other forum. Absent UDRP there are two possible ways the immunity question could come before a court: (a) A TM owner seeks to acquire a domain which an IGO has registered (b) An IGO seeks to acquire a domain which a domain registrant has registered In (a) the IGO would be entitled to raise an immunity defence In (b) the IGO would be required to waive immunity for the court to consider the matter. I appreciate this is a very precise legal point and even Prof. Swaine confused this in his reasoning* but we as a working group have no excuse. Best regards, Paul. *In 3. Discussion (Page 8) Swaine says: "The core question is whether an IGO is “entitled to immunity,” but the baseline assumptions may be disaggregated. An IGO’s immunity would be most clearly at issue if the IGO had not itself initiated any related judicial proceeding—since that would risk waiving any immunity to which it would be entitled, including to counterclaims18—and the UDPRP’s Mutual Jurisdiction provision were absent. This might be the case, for example, where a domain-name registrant has sought a declaratory judgment in relation to some actual or potential infringement by an IGO.19 Although that is not the scenario of principal concern here, imagining that scenario usefully isolates the question as to whether an IGO has a legitimate expectation that it would be entitled to immunity absent the UDRP and its concessions. If such immunity is minimal or uncertain, then any compromises required by the UDRP loom less large; if the IGO would otherwise be entitled to immunity, however, its potential sacrifice seems more substantial." On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
George:
You are correct, and I hereby offer a Mea Culpa for that incorrect sentence, which I authored. It was a mistake on my part rather than any attempt to mislead the WG.
My personal view remains that Option A would be DOA upon arrival at the GNSO Council, and that Option B would suffer the same fate because it adopts Option A for all grandfathered domains. The bigger problem is that such rejection might bring down the entire Final Report.
Best, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 6:39 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Co-Chairs' proposal for Working Group consideration - UPDATED
In my email last week:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-September/000849.html
I pointed out various flaws in the "Preliminary Notes" section:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-September/000849.html
e.g. in relation to Option B, it was asserted:
"They also observe that it would leave registrants of grandfathered domains without any arbitral appeal option in the event that an IGO successfully invoked judicial process immunity."
which is obviously incorrect, because in that scenario "Option A" would apply, and there would not be any need for the registrants to seek arbitration, given the UDRP decision would be vitiated.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote:
Dear WG Members,
Taking into account the WG members’ conversations on the 28 September WG meeting, staff has updated the “Options Proposal for WG Discussion” document for continued discussion on the upcoming 5 October meeting. It is anticipated that the conversation will return to Option B and then continue to then discuss Option C.
Please do let us know if anything might require adjustment prior to the WG’s next meeting.
Best,
Steve
Steven Chan
Policy Director, GNSO Support
ICANN
12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
steve.chan@icann.org
mobile: +1.310.339.4410
office tel: +1.310.301.5800
office fax: +1.310.823.8649
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.
Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO
Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp