CLARIFICATIONS (Re: Proposed agenda for the WG call on 12 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC)
Dear all, Staff wishes to clarify a few matters. First, please note that a consensus call process is not a formal voting process. The GNSO Working Group Guidelines require that initial designations of consensus levels be made by the Working Group chair(s) following what they believe has been, and based on their estimation and evaluation of the outcome of, sufficient discussion of the issues under consideration by the group. As has been noted previously by this group, polling is intended to be limited to rare situations, and even so the Guidelines note that “care should be taken in using polls that they do not become votes”. There is no requirement that all members’ preferences must be expressly listed, and this is not generally done in other PDPs – however, for this particular group Petter believed that in the circumstances it might be useful to do so in the document that he sent around initially. The updated document that Steve circulated most recently with the proposed agenda reflected what, as of the close of the consensus call and when Petter and Susan conferred with staff, seemed to be the situation based on members’ expressed opinions. In some cases, where a person noted that he/she supported a recommendation/option but did not specifically say he/she opposed others, their silence on the other recommendations/options was not necessarily interpreted as objection – seeing especially as this process is not a formal voting process and, as such, there is no provision for abstentions. There may be disagreement about whether someone in fact supported or opposed a proposal based on what they did or did not say, or whether he/she will now support a proposal because of some changes made to the text – this iterative consensus process is intended to elicit that type of clarification and error correction. Secondly, the GNSO procedures do not require that the Final Report be circulated along with the opening of the consensus call. While typically this has been done in some other PDPs, the circumstances of this Working Group mean that the last version of the draft Final Report that was circulated could not include final proposed language on some of the options, as these needed clarifying through the consensus process that is now taking place. Staff notes that members were invited to voice concerns and raise suggestions about substantive text of the draft Final Report that had been circulated, and a deadline of 21 May suggested for this purpose. Staff has noted the few suggestions received and will be updating the report further with the final results of this consensus call. Thirdly, staff had already noted to Petter and Susan that Option 1 and Option 4 may be incompatible with one another, as several members have already begun discussing on this mailing list. Our collective expectation was that this is something that can and should be clarified by the group, possibly on the call taking place later today, if it becomes clear that those are indeed going to be the group’s final consensus recommendations. In this regard, while the anticipated date of finalization of all recommendations and the report was intended to be 17 June, we note that this was based on the hope that there will not be significant difficulty in reaching agreement on the final consensus levels and recommendations. It is up to the group, in consultation with Petter and Susan, to determine if after the call today more time may be needed. Finally, the updated consensus level designations document includes a few changes to the text of Recommendations #1 & #2. For Recommendation #1, we have added the word “substantive” to the phrase “No [substantive] changes to the UDRP and URS are to be made … “, reflecting a suggestion made by Zak to clarify that procedural changes may still be permitted if these become necessary. For Recommendation #2, we suggested a change (as noted by George) but did not go on to suggest that the sentence in addition be amended to say that where an IGO “believes it has unregistered trademark or service mark rights” as also suggested by George. We suggested an amendment to read only “believes it has unregistered rights” instead, as we believe that UDRP jurisprudence permits certain forms of unregistered rights that are not trademark-based (e.g. via passing off or unfair competition) to ground standing to file a complaint. Staff would also like to take this opportunity also to reiterate that where we have raised questions or provided information about specific issues, we have done so in our role as policy staff facilitating and supporting GNSO Working Groups, managing Working Group processes, and providing subject matter expertise where needed or appropriate. We hope that the Working Group has found this assistance helpful. Thank you. Best regards, Mary and Steve From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Reg Levy <rlevy@tucows.com> Date: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 08:18 To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com>, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Proposed agenda for the WG call on 12 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC This is precisely why I think we need to have a vote that is much more obvious about who is voting in support (or not) of what. It should ALSO be made VERY clear what an abstention means. I take it to mean "no" but I know that is not a universal view. -- Reg Levy Director of Compliance Tucows D: +1 (323) 880-0831 O: +1 (416) 535-0123 x1452 UTC -7 On 11 Jun 2018, at 15:00, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Actually, I spoke too soon. For Recommendation #2, the text was changed (to what I initially thought was acceptable), but it only captured *part* of the change, not the full change. i.e. my change was: "An IGO may consider this to be an option where it does not have registered trademark rights or service mark rights in its name or acronym (as applicable) but believes it has certain unregistered trademark or service marks rights for which it might adduce….." But this new document instead says: "An IGO may consider this to be an option where it does not have registered trademark rights or service mark rights in its name or acronym (as applicable) but believes it has certain unregistered rights for which it might adduce….." i.e. the *second* "trademark or service" marks is *missing* from this new version. So, unless the wording is changed again, count me as *NOT SUPPORT* of this text. I'm going to go through this more thoroughly later, and consolidate all future comments into a single email. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:34 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: This is late, and given what I've posted the past few days, one would have expected it to have been triple-checked for accuracy, etc. I went directly to Recommendation #2, and noticed I'm now listed as "Support" and Paul Tattersfield is listed as "do not support" (whereas in the document before this, sent by Petter, both Paul T. and I were listed as "do not support"): https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001238.html Here was my comment: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001219.html and Paul T's: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001237.html both of us wanted slight changing of the wording. So, I see that the document that Steve circulated *does* change the wording, so my "Support" in the new document is accurate. But, then since Paul T agreed with me (and presumably agrees with the new text), why is he still listed as "Do Not Support"??? Also, we know from posts on the mailing list that Jim Bikoff expressly said he only supports Recommendation #1 ! https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001256.html "All, please understand my position in support of recommendation 1 that no change to UDRP or URS or special procedure is warranted. No support for other recommendations." So, that's 2 errors (i.e. Paul T flips to "Support" and Jim Bikoff is added to "Do not support") So, this *still* has *obvious* errors, and I haven't even reviewed it closely (so there could be, and probably are, even more). I have so little confidence, I basically have to *redo* it on my own, on a compressed time frame. As for the agenda, I'd like my new Section 3.7 appeal to be a topic added to the agenda (which does require a call between the chair and myself, and since we're both going to be present -- or it could be immediately after the call), along with the general topic of how it's humanly possible to get a final report out by Sunday. Or if it's already been decided that that timeline is off the table, tell us now, to release some pressure from this PDP. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Steve Chan <steve.chan@icann.org> wrote: Dear WG Members, With apologies for late delivery, as George noted, please find the proposed agenda for the WG call on 12 June 2018 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Welcome / SOIs Review of Initial Consensus Level Designations Next Steps AOB In regards to agenda item 2, please see the attached document to support those discussions. This document follows and is a revised version of the one sent by Petter on 9 June 2018. 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/ http://gnso.icann.org/en/ _______________________________________________ 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
Mary: On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:12 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
The updated document that Steve circulated most recently with the proposed agenda reflected what, as of the close of the consensus call and when Petter
It's not the "close of the consensus call' -- you called it a consensus call, but that didn't make it one. If it had been a consensus call, then you'd have the final designations already! You're still struggling to set the *initial* designations. We're *now* at the start of a true "consensus call".
the text – this iterative consensus process is intended to elicit that type of clarification and error correction.
Right, the iterative consensus process *is* intended to elicit that type of clarification. That's why we're *now* in the real "Consensus Call" as per the working group guidelines. If the consensus call was "closed" as you said above, then we'd have reached the final designations already.
Secondly, the GNSO procedures do not require that the Final Report be circulated along with the opening of the consensus call. While typically this has been done in some other PDPs, the circumstances of this Working Group mean that the last version of the draft Final Report that was circulated could not include final proposed language on some of the options, as these needed clarifying through the consensus process that is now taking place. Staff notes that members were invited to voice concerns and raise suggestions about substantive text of the draft Final Report that had been circulated, and a deadline of 21 May suggested for this purpose. Staff has noted the few suggestions received and will be updating the report further with the final results of this consensus call.
Disagree. At some point we have to agree on final text of a final report. How are we going to do that, when we're arguing over the recommendations (a part of the final report), but haven't seen all the rest? There's quite limited text on Recommendation 5 -- there needs to be much more added.
Finally, the updated consensus level designations document includes a few changes to the text of Recommendations #1 & #2. For Recommendation #1, we have added the word “substantive” to the phrase “No [substantive] changes to the UDRP and URS are to be made … “, reflecting a suggestion made by Zak to clarify that procedural changes may still be permitted if these become necessary. For Recommendation #2, we suggested a change (as noted by George) but did not go on to suggest that the sentence in addition be amended to say that where an IGO “believes it has unregistered trademark or service mark rights” as also suggested by George. We suggested an amendment to read only “believes it has unregistered rights” instead, as we believe that UDRP jurisprudence permits certain forms of unregistered rights that are not trademark-based (e.g. via passing off or unfair competition) to ground standing to file a complaint.
I think Recommendation #1 will need to be redrafted. I think we have full consensus on the "idea", but somehow we lost it in the wording. Take a look at the email I sent earlier to Phil: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001278.html Not looking at the current text or past, here's what I believe we've agreed to. (a) for INGOs, no specific new process created (b) for IGOs, no specific new process created (c) for INGOs (i.e. we finished the INGO stuff long ago), no changes whatsover to the UDRP and URS to be made I think the current sentence is trying to do too much, and not capturing these 3 main ideas. [optional (d) ??!!?? for IGOs, no [substantive] changes to the UDRP/URS are to be made ***** [this might not even be necessary, or could be taken out; depending on the outcome of Recommendation #5] We've gone over the text so many times before, we need to review it with fresh eyes, to make sure everything's being properly captured (i.e. when we're reading it casually, we're perhaps glossing over it, as we thought we understood it already)
For Recommendation #2, we suggested a change (as noted by George) but did not go on to suggest that the sentence in addition be amended to say that where an IGO “believes it has unregistered trademark or service mark rights” as also suggested by George. We suggested an amendment to read only “believes it has unregistered rights” instead, as we believe that UDRP jurisprudence permits certain forms of unregistered rights that are not trademark-based (e.g. via passing off or unfair competition) to ground standing to file a complaint.
"passing off" is still based on trademark rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off "In common law countries such as England, Australia and New Zealand, passing off is a common law tort which can be used to enforce unregistered trade mark rights." But "unfair competition" is broader: http://legalteamusa.net/tacticalip/2012/11/29/unfair-competition-how-does-it... "So, where does trademark infringement fit in the picture? Trademark infringement is a form of unfair competition. The law of trademarks is a subcategory of the broader arena of unfair competition; therefore, trademark infringement actions fall within the umbrella of unfair competition. " So, "trademark infringement" (what the UDRP is all about) is a SUBSET of unfair competition. If you included "unfair competition" in this PDP as a grounds for "standing", then you'd be granting brand new disputes to enter the UDRP/URS arena that are unrelated to trademark infringement. So, in other words, all trademark infringement is unfair competition. But not all unfair competition is trademark infringement. [i.e. subset: alls cats animals, but not all animals are cats] But, the UDRP and URS are just for trademark and service mark issues. With the way (as of today) it's been worded, it's opening up a can of worms, that some other kinds of brand new unregistered rights (unrelated to trademark and service marks) will be referenced in the future by IGOs, greatly expanding the kinds of disputes brought for the UDRP/URS. e.g. let's suppose the complainant is OECD, and they claim "unfair competition" to someone using EXAMPLE.COM. The word "EXAMPLE" has no connection whatsoever with the mark "OECD". But, suppose there's some other kind of right that OECD tries to assert to get "standing", other than trademark rights, to go after misuse of EXAMPLE.COM (which might be spamming, or doing some other kind of abuse like spamming or phishing that has 'passing off' or is 'unfair' based on content, not the domain name) -- then Staff would be saying "UDRP can be used for that" ---- I say "NO WAY". I can't support it -- we need to be very precise (and as Petter said, just match the language of the UDRP/URS, and not refer ambiguously to "unregistered rights" -- they have to be "unregistered TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK rights".
Staff would also like to take this opportunity also to reiterate that where we have raised questions or provided information about specific issues, we have done so in our role as policy staff facilitating and supporting GNSO Working Groups, managing Working Group processes, and providing subject matter expertise where needed or appropriate. We hope that the Working Group has found this assistance helpful.
Disagree, for reasons already stated. Providing facts is one thing. But, interjecting stuff like (and this is but one example) https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/2018-05-25+IGO-INGO+Access+... https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/84222087/For%20Discussion%2... "Staff continues to have concerns with this option, as it will mean that resolving a procedural question (immunity from jurisdiction) can automatically reverse a substantive panel finding, where the court has not had (and will not have) the opportunity to hear the case on its merits. This will reverse the current situation where, if a court refuses to hear the case, the original UDRP/URS decision stands." that crosses the line into advocacy, in my view. How is that any different from "concerns" of those who were advocating against it, which wasn't new opinion? [And to balance, Staff didn't show concern that a procedural tactic (raising immunity) can prevent the hearing of a dispute on its merits (the de novo appeal). And furthermore, it's not unusual for procedural questions reverse substantive panel findings (of a lower court)! e.g. a lower court hears a case, rules on the merits, but then an appeals court tosses out the lower court ruling based ona a "procedural" issue (e.g. I gave was the R v Jordan Supreme Court of Canada case, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Jordan_(2016) , where it took too long for the accused to get to trial; similarly, if a lower court hears a case, but then an appeals court rules that the lower court misapplied statute of limitations or some other procedural question, it can toss a lower court). We (supporters of Option #1 in Rec 5) actually *WANT* to reverse the "current situation", as that's where the rights of the registrants to due process is actually being negatively affected. Not just in this case, but in the Yoyo.email cause of action situation -- http://www.circleid.com/posts/20180103_the_udrp_and_judicial_review/ ; we knowingly want to fix these.] Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
To really look at Recommendation #1, I went "back to basics" and looked at the initial public report (as published for public comment), as the starting point. Guess what? It was messed up even back then. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/Draft+Initial+Report+-+incl... Bottom of page 7 of initial public report (as published for public comment). "The Charter that was approved by the GNSO Council tasked the WG with examining the following questions: “whether to amend the UDRP and URS to allow access to and use of these mechanisms by IGOs and INGOs and, if so in what respects or whether a separate, narrowlytailored dispute resolution procedure at the second level modeled on the UDRP and URS that takes into account the particular needs and specific circumstances of IGOs and INGOs should be developed.” The WG’s preliminary answers to these questions are no4 , although the WG also identifies and suggests ways in which IGOs can have standing to access the protections of the UDRP and URS without registering trademarks in their names and acronyms, and can substantially insulate themselves from jurisdictional immunity concerns. Reasons for these conclusions, and specific recommendations pertaining to specific questions arising within the scope of its Charter, are described below. Essentially, the WG concluded that, for IGOs, the most prudent and advisable approach would be to not recommend any changes to the UDRP or URS at this time, given: So, we had (in our explanation) intended to address the topic of "whether a separate, narrowly tailored dispute resolution procedure at the second level modeled on the UDRP and URS that takes into account the particular needs and specific circumstances" should be developed for IGOs, and the answer to that is NO. But, somehow we skipped actually putting that into Recommendation #1 back then! (somehow it only mentioned INGOs, because we were trying to conflate multiple ideas.) This is why we need more time, because we even messed up way back then. There should have been a "Recommendation 1A" back then, something like: "Recommendation #1A: For IGOs, the WG recommends that no changes to the UDRP and URS be made, and no specific new process be created." (notice I've moved "For IGOs" to the beginning, for absolute clarity"). Recommendation #1 should have been more like: Recommendation #1 (rewritten): For INGOs (including the Red Cross movement and the International Olympic Committee, the WG recommends that no changes to the UDRP and URS be made, and no specific new process be created. To the extent that the Policy Guidance document referred to elsewhere in this set of recommendations is compiled, the WG recommends that this clarification as regards INGOs be included in that document. That would have been the right way to do things. Even now, in the most recent (May 2018) draft we looked at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/2018-05-10+IGO-INGO+Access+... The same issues exist on Recommendation #1 (see the bottom of page 9 where we say the answers to these questions are "no", so we do have the conclusion, but didn't put it into the recommendation. The older document (from January 2017) even had important language that appears to have disappeared in the May 2018 version. See Recommendation 3 which included the text back then of: "The WG does not recommend any specific changes to the substantive grounds under the UDRP or URS upon which a complainant may file and succeed on a claim against a respondent (e.g. as listed in Section 4(a)(i) – (iii) of the UDRP)." That old language now has disappeared, thinking (perhaps) that it was captured in our current Recommendation #1? But, it's not actually quite captured. PDP members supposedly "reviewed all this", but I'm even finding these now (when staff didn't produce a redline version, because of extensive changes supposedly, some of these changes got completely missed, as I bet nobody went back and did a word-by-word comparison to see what might have gotten lost). Have I convinced folks we need to go through things carefully, and need more time? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:43 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Mary:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:12 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
The updated document that Steve circulated most recently with the proposed agenda reflected what, as of the close of the consensus call and when Petter
It's not the "close of the consensus call' -- you called it a consensus call, but that didn't make it one. If it had been a consensus call, then you'd have the final designations already! You're still struggling to set the *initial* designations. We're *now* at the start of a true "consensus call".
the text – this iterative consensus process is intended to elicit that type of clarification and error correction.
Right, the iterative consensus process *is* intended to elicit that type of clarification. That's why we're *now* in the real "Consensus Call" as per the working group guidelines. If the consensus call was "closed" as you said above, then we'd have reached the final designations already.
Secondly, the GNSO procedures do not require that the Final Report be circulated along with the opening of the consensus call. While typically this has been done in some other PDPs, the circumstances of this Working Group mean that the last version of the draft Final Report that was circulated could not include final proposed language on some of the options, as these needed clarifying through the consensus process that is now taking place. Staff notes that members were invited to voice concerns and raise suggestions about substantive text of the draft Final Report that had been circulated, and a deadline of 21 May suggested for this purpose. Staff has noted the few suggestions received and will be updating the report further with the final results of this consensus call.
Disagree. At some point we have to agree on final text of a final report. How are we going to do that, when we're arguing over the recommendations (a part of the final report), but haven't seen all the rest? There's quite limited text on Recommendation 5 -- there needs to be much more added.
Finally, the updated consensus level designations document includes a few changes to the text of Recommendations #1 & #2. For Recommendation #1, we have added the word “substantive” to the phrase “No [substantive] changes to the UDRP and URS are to be made … “, reflecting a suggestion made by Zak to clarify that procedural changes may still be permitted if these become necessary. For Recommendation #2, we suggested a change (as noted by George) but did not go on to suggest that the sentence in addition be amended to say that where an IGO “believes it has unregistered trademark or service mark rights” as also suggested by George. We suggested an amendment to read only “believes it has unregistered rights” instead, as we believe that UDRP jurisprudence permits certain forms of unregistered rights that are not trademark-based (e.g. via passing off or unfair competition) to ground standing to file a complaint.
I think Recommendation #1 will need to be redrafted. I think we have full consensus on the "idea", but somehow we lost it in the wording. Take a look at the email I sent earlier to Phil:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001278.html
Not looking at the current text or past, here's what I believe we've agreed to.
(a) for INGOs, no specific new process created (b) for IGOs, no specific new process created (c) for INGOs (i.e. we finished the INGO stuff long ago), no changes whatsover to the UDRP and URS to be made
I think the current sentence is trying to do too much, and not capturing these 3 main ideas.
[optional (d) ??!!?? for IGOs, no [substantive] changes to the UDRP/URS are to be made ***** [this might not even be necessary, or could be taken out; depending on the outcome of Recommendation #5]
We've gone over the text so many times before, we need to review it with fresh eyes, to make sure everything's being properly captured (i.e. when we're reading it casually, we're perhaps glossing over it, as we thought we understood it already)
For Recommendation #2, we suggested a change (as noted by George) but did not go on to suggest that the sentence in addition be amended to say that where an IGO “believes it has unregistered trademark or service mark rights” as also suggested by George. We suggested an amendment to read only “believes it has unregistered rights” instead, as we believe that UDRP jurisprudence permits certain forms of unregistered rights that are not trademark-based (e.g. via passing off or unfair competition) to ground standing to file a complaint.
"passing off" is still based on trademark rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off
"In common law countries such as England, Australia and New Zealand, passing off is a common law tort which can be used to enforce unregistered trade mark rights."
But "unfair competition" is broader:
http://legalteamusa.net/tacticalip/2012/11/29/unfair-competition-how-does-it...
"So, where does trademark infringement fit in the picture? Trademark infringement is a form of unfair competition. The law of trademarks is a subcategory of the broader arena of unfair competition; therefore, trademark infringement actions fall within the umbrella of unfair competition. "
So, "trademark infringement" (what the UDRP is all about) is a SUBSET of unfair competition. If you included "unfair competition" in this PDP as a grounds for "standing", then you'd be granting brand new disputes to enter the UDRP/URS arena that are unrelated to trademark infringement.
So, in other words, all trademark infringement is unfair competition. But not all unfair competition is trademark infringement.
[i.e. subset: alls cats animals, but not all animals are cats]
But, the UDRP and URS are just for trademark and service mark issues. With the way (as of today) it's been worded, it's opening up a can of worms, that some other kinds of brand new unregistered rights (unrelated to trademark and service marks) will be referenced in the future by IGOs, greatly expanding the kinds of disputes brought for the UDRP/URS.
e.g. let's suppose the complainant is OECD, and they claim "unfair competition" to someone using EXAMPLE.COM. The word "EXAMPLE" has no connection whatsoever with the mark "OECD". But, suppose there's some other kind of right that OECD tries to assert to get "standing", other than trademark rights, to go after misuse of EXAMPLE.COM (which might be spamming, or doing some other kind of abuse like spamming or phishing that has 'passing off' or is 'unfair' based on content, not the domain name) -- then Staff would be saying "UDRP can be used for that" ---- I say "NO WAY". I can't support it -- we need to be very precise (and as Petter said, just match the language of the UDRP/URS, and not refer ambiguously to "unregistered rights" -- they have to be "unregistered TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK rights".
Staff would also like to take this opportunity also to reiterate that where we have raised questions or provided information about specific issues, we have done so in our role as policy staff facilitating and supporting GNSO Working Groups, managing Working Group processes, and providing subject matter expertise where needed or appropriate. We hope that the Working Group has found this assistance helpful.
Disagree, for reasons already stated. Providing facts is one thing. But, interjecting stuff like (and this is but one example)
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/2018-05-25+IGO-INGO+Access+...
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/84222087/For%20Discussion%2...
"Staff continues to have concerns with this option, as it will mean that resolving a procedural question (immunity from jurisdiction) can automatically reverse a substantive panel finding, where the court has not had (and will not have) the opportunity to hear the case on its merits. This will reverse the current situation where, if a court refuses to hear the case, the original UDRP/URS decision stands."
that crosses the line into advocacy, in my view. How is that any different from "concerns" of those who were advocating against it, which wasn't new opinion?
[And to balance, Staff didn't show concern that a procedural tactic (raising immunity) can prevent the hearing of a dispute on its merits (the de novo appeal). And furthermore, it's not unusual for procedural questions reverse substantive panel findings (of a lower court)! e.g. a lower court hears a case, rules on the merits, but then an appeals court tosses out the lower court ruling based ona a "procedural" issue (e.g. I gave was the R v Jordan Supreme Court of Canada case, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Jordan_(2016) , where it took too long for the accused to get to trial; similarly, if a lower court hears a case, but then an appeals court rules that the lower court misapplied statute of limitations or some other procedural question, it can toss a lower court).
We (supporters of Option #1 in Rec 5) actually *WANT* to reverse the "current situation", as that's where the rights of the registrants to due process is actually being negatively affected. Not just in this case, but in the Yoyo.email cause of action situation -- http://www.circleid.com/posts/20180103_the_udrp_and_judicial_review/ ; we knowingly want to fix these.]
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
participants (2)
-
George Kirikos -
Mary Wong