Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June
Dear WG members, The proposed agenda for our next meeting, scheduled for Wednesday 10 June, is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Discuss and finalize questions for independent legal expert (see attached for draft document from the WG co-chairs) 3. Planning for WG meeting in Buenos Aires/next steps It may be that we will not need the full hour; however, Petter and Phil would like the group to have this call prior to the open meeting we are scheduled to have in Buenos Aires, on Wednesday 24 June at 10.00 a.m. ART (local time). For those WG members who will not be present in Buenos Aires, the usual remote participation facilities will be available, and we¹ll send call-in and other details prior to the date. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
Thanks Mary. I support this draft. I won't make the call tomorrow, but will see everyone in B.A. Best, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear WG members,
The proposed agenda for our next meeting, scheduled for Wednesday 10 June, is as follows:
1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Discuss and finalize questions for independent legal expert (see attached for draft document from the WG co-chairs) 3. Planning for WG meeting in Buenos Aires/next steps
It may be that we will not need the full hour; however, Petter and Phil would like the group to have this call prior to the open meeting we are scheduled to have in Buenos Aires, on Wednesday 24 June at 10.00 a.m. ART (local time). For those WG members who will not be present in Buenos Aires, the usual remote participation facilities will be available, and we’ll send call-in and other details prior to the date.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
For point/question #3, in particular: "What if the Mutual Jurisdiction requirement specified that, to apply to IGOs, it has to be a jurisdiction of one of its member states?" I don't see how this could ever be acceptable to registrants. For example, for a North American registrant using a North American registrar, an IGO consisting of member states from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey might place the "mutual jurisdiction" in one of those 4 countries that have absolutely nothing to do with the registrant, rather than in North America. The same would apply to the rest of point #3, i.e. allowing the IGO to "forum shop" by selecting a jurisdiction of a member state. For a court to even have jurisdiction over a registrant, there must be some connection to the underlying dispute and parties. That has normally been (a) location of registrant, (b) location of registrar, or (c) location of registry operator. I know these are just 'exploratory' questions, but I don't see why any legitimacy should be attached to ad hoc proposals like the above by submitting them to 'experts' in the first place. This should be about fact-finding, not an informal 'negotiation' with IGOs. Conclusions/solutions should flow from the facts. Putting out possible 'solutions' first, and then trying to come up with some 'rationale' to justify them later is the wrong way to do things, in my opinion. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear WG members,
The proposed agenda for our next meeting, scheduled for Wednesday 10 June, is as follows:
Roll call/updates to SOI Discuss and finalize questions for independent legal expert (see attached for draft document from the WG co-chairs) Planning for WG meeting in Buenos Aires/next steps
It may be that we will not need the full hour; however, Petter and Phil would like the group to have this call prior to the open meeting we are scheduled to have in Buenos Aires, on Wednesday 24 June at 10.00 a.m. ART (local time). For those WG members who will not be present in Buenos Aires, the usual remote participation facilities will be available, and we’ll send call-in and other details prior to the date.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
I agree with George on these which is why my suggested revisions removed these proposed questions. PRK On 6/10/15 2:09 PM, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com> wrote:
For point/question #3, in particular:
"What if the Mutual Jurisdiction requirement specified that, to apply to IGOs, it has to be a jurisdiction of one of its member states?"
I don't see how this could ever be acceptable to registrants. For example, for a North American registrant using a North American registrar, an IGO consisting of member states from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey might place the "mutual jurisdiction" in one of those 4 countries that have absolutely nothing to do with the registrant, rather than in North America.
The same would apply to the rest of point #3, i.e. allowing the IGO to "forum shop" by selecting a jurisdiction of a member state. For a court to even have jurisdiction over a registrant, there must be some connection to the underlying dispute and parties. That has normally been (a) location of registrant, (b) location of registrar, or (c) location of registry operator.
I know these are just 'exploratory' questions, but I don't see why any legitimacy should be attached to ad hoc proposals like the above by submitting them to 'experts' in the first place. This should be about fact-finding, not an informal 'negotiation' with IGOs. Conclusions/solutions should flow from the facts. Putting out possible 'solutions' first, and then trying to come up with some 'rationale' to justify them later is the wrong way to do things, in my opinion.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear WG members,
The proposed agenda for our next meeting, scheduled for Wednesday 10 June, is as follows:
Roll call/updates to SOI Discuss and finalize questions for independent legal expert (see attached for draft document from the WG co-chairs) Planning for WG meeting in Buenos Aires/next steps
It may be that we will not need the full hour; however, Petter and Phil would like the group to have this call prior to the open meeting we are scheduled to have in Buenos Aires, on Wednesday 24 June at 10.00 a.m. ART (local time). For those WG members who will not be present in Buenos Aires, the usual remote participation facilities will be available, and we¹ll send call-in and other details prior to the date.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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
I agree with George as well. Jay On Jun 10, 2015 8:35 AM, "Paul Keating" <Paul@law.es> wrote:
I agree with George on these which is why my suggested revisions removed these proposed questions.
PRK
On 6/10/15 2:09 PM, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com> wrote:
For point/question #3, in particular:
"What if the Mutual Jurisdiction requirement specified that, to apply to IGOs, it has to be a jurisdiction of one of its member states?"
I don't see how this could ever be acceptable to registrants. For example, for a North American registrant using a North American registrar, an IGO consisting of member states from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey might place the "mutual jurisdiction" in one of those 4 countries that have absolutely nothing to do with the registrant, rather than in North America.
The same would apply to the rest of point #3, i.e. allowing the IGO to "forum shop" by selecting a jurisdiction of a member state. For a court to even have jurisdiction over a registrant, there must be some connection to the underlying dispute and parties. That has normally been (a) location of registrant, (b) location of registrar, or (c) location of registry operator.
I know these are just 'exploratory' questions, but I don't see why any legitimacy should be attached to ad hoc proposals like the above by submitting them to 'experts' in the first place. This should be about fact-finding, not an informal 'negotiation' with IGOs. Conclusions/solutions should flow from the facts. Putting out possible 'solutions' first, and then trying to come up with some 'rationale' to justify them later is the wrong way to do things, in my opinion.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear WG members,
The proposed agenda for our next meeting, scheduled for Wednesday 10 June, is as follows:
Roll call/updates to SOI Discuss and finalize questions for independent legal expert (see attached for draft document from the WG co-chairs) Planning for WG meeting in Buenos Aires/next steps
It may be that we will not need the full hour; however, Petter and Phil would like the group to have this call prior to the open meeting we are scheduled to have in Buenos Aires, on Wednesday 24 June at 10.00 a.m. ART (local time). For those WG members who will not be present in Buenos Aires, the usual remote participation facilities will be available, and we¹ll send call-in and other details prior to the date.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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
Same here I concur with George Kind Regards Poncelet. On 11 June 2015 at 14:25, Jay Chapman <jay@digimedia.com> wrote:
I agree with George as well.
Jay On Jun 10, 2015 8:35 AM, "Paul Keating" <Paul@law.es> wrote:
I agree with George on these which is why my suggested revisions removed these proposed questions.
PRK
On 6/10/15 2:09 PM, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com> wrote:
For point/question #3, in particular:
"What if the Mutual Jurisdiction requirement specified that, to apply to IGOs, it has to be a jurisdiction of one of its member states?"
I don't see how this could ever be acceptable to registrants. For example, for a North American registrant using a North American registrar, an IGO consisting of member states from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey might place the "mutual jurisdiction" in one of those 4 countries that have absolutely nothing to do with the registrant, rather than in North America.
The same would apply to the rest of point #3, i.e. allowing the IGO to "forum shop" by selecting a jurisdiction of a member state. For a court to even have jurisdiction over a registrant, there must be some connection to the underlying dispute and parties. That has normally been (a) location of registrant, (b) location of registrar, or (c) location of registry operator.
I know these are just 'exploratory' questions, but I don't see why any legitimacy should be attached to ad hoc proposals like the above by submitting them to 'experts' in the first place. This should be about fact-finding, not an informal 'negotiation' with IGOs. Conclusions/solutions should flow from the facts. Putting out possible 'solutions' first, and then trying to come up with some 'rationale' to justify them later is the wrong way to do things, in my opinion.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear WG members,
The proposed agenda for our next meeting, scheduled for Wednesday 10 June, is as follows:
Roll call/updates to SOI Discuss and finalize questions for independent legal expert (see attached for draft document from the WG co-chairs) Planning for WG meeting in Buenos Aires/next steps
It may be that we will not need the full hour; however, Petter and Phil would like the group to have this call prior to the open meeting we are scheduled to have in Buenos Aires, on Wednesday 24 June at 10.00 a.m. ART (local time). For those WG members who will not be present in Buenos Aires, the usual remote participation facilities will be available, and we¹ll send call-in and other details prior to the date.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
-- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>www.aficta.org <http://www.aficta.org>www.itag.gm <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
Can someone send me the adobe link? I lost it from my screen. Thank you. With kind regards, Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-261-6588 From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 11:35 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June Dear WG members, The proposed agenda for our next meeting, scheduled for Wednesday 10 June, is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Discuss and finalize questions for independent legal expert (see attached for draft document from the WG co-chairs) 3. Planning for WG meeting in Buenos Aires/next steps It may be that we will not need the full hour; however, Petter and Phil would like the group to have this call prior to the open meeting we are scheduled to have in Buenos Aires, on Wednesday 24 June at 10.00 a.m. ART (local time). For those WG members who will not be present in Buenos Aires, the usual remote participation facilities will be available, and we'll send call-in and other details prior to the date. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
https://icann.adobeconnect.com/crp/ 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 From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:12 PM To: Mary Wong; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June Can someone send me the adobe link? I lost it from my screen. Thank you. With kind regards, Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-261-6588 From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 11:35 AM To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June Dear WG members, The proposed agenda for our next meeting, scheduled for Wednesday 10 June, is as follows: 1. Roll call/updates to SOI 2. Discuss and finalize questions for independent legal expert (see attached for draft document from the WG co-chairs) 3. Planning for WG meeting in Buenos Aires/next steps It may be that we will not need the full hour; however, Petter and Phil would like the group to have this call prior to the open meeting we are scheduled to have in Buenos Aires, on Wednesday 24 June at 10.00 a.m. ART (local time). For those WG members who will not be present in Buenos Aires, the usual remote participation facilities will be available, and we'll send call-in and other details prior to the date. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5941 / Virus Database: 4354/9872 - Release Date: 05/26/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
participants (8)
-
George Kirikos -
Jay Chapman -
Lori Schulman -
Mary Wong -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Paul Keating -
Phil Corwin -
Poncelet Ileleji