PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique
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/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
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/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 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
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/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 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/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 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<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5315 / Virus Database: 4189/8462 - Release Date: 10/27/14 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Phil thanks for drafting and to Mason, Mary, George and others for their contributions. Looks good to me. Regards, Nat On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 4:49 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
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
I guess we could drill down a bit on the substance/procedures matter – although my guess is that they haven’t even thought about it, and were meaning to say that they want a new CRP for IGOs rather than any modified version of the UDRP. What do others think? 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: Paul Tattersfield [mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 5:13 PM To: Phil Corwin Cc: Mason Cole; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique 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<mailto: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<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Mason Cole [mailto:mason@donuts.co<mailto:mason@donuts.co>] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 3:50 PM To: Phil Corwin Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto: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<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel: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<mailto: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<mailto:mason@donuts.co> Ofc +1 503 908 7623<tel:%2B1%20503%20908%207623> Cell +1 503 407 2555<tel:%2B1%20503%20407%202555> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://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<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5315 / Virus Database: 4189/8462 - Release Date: 10/27/14 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Although I am new to this discussion, I think that based on what I have read and heard so far, the GAC may be talking about a new CRP for IGO’s. IGO’s should be accorded CRP due to their special status. This would be a logical conclusion from the statement that they oppose any changes to the UDRP especially given that trademark registration/ownership is the cornerstone to standing. Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org<mailto:Lori.Schulman@ascd.org> [cid:image001.png@01CC81E2.512C46F0] From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 5:29 PM To: Paul Tattersfield 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 I guess we could drill down a bit on the substance/procedures matter – although my guess is that they haven’t even thought about it, and were meaning to say that they want a new CRP for IGOs rather than any modified version of the UDRP. What do others think? 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: Paul Tattersfield [mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 5:13 PM To: Phil Corwin Cc: Mason Cole; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique 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<mailto: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<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Mason Cole [mailto:mason@donuts.co<mailto:mason@donuts.co>] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 3:50 PM To: Phil Corwin Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto: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<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel: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<mailto: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<mailto:mason@donuts.co> Ofc +1 503 908 7623<tel:%2B1%20503%20908%207623> Cell +1 503 407 2555<tel:%2B1%20503%20407%202555> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://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<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5315 / Virus Database: 4189/8462 - Release Date: 10/27/14 Internal Virus Database is out of date. Learn the secrets to great leadership practices at the ASCD Conference on Educational Leadership, October 31–November 2, 2014 in Orlando, Florida. Featured presenters include Todd Whitaker, Baruti Kafele, Robyn Jackson, and Carol Ann Tomlinson. Register NOW at www.ascd.org/cel.<http://www.ascd.org/cel> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free.
I honestly believe a separate IGO CRP would be a mess. It would entail a cross-gtld CRP based solely on the domain regardless of extension. It would also conflict directly with the cctld process, which is different in several instances (.eu, .co.uk, etc). Regards, Paul Keating
On 05 Nov 2014, at 11:37 pm, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org> wrote:
Although I am new to this discussion, I think that based on what I have read and heard so far, the GAC may be talking about a new CRP for IGO’s. IGO’s should be accorded CRP due to their special status. This would be a logical conclusion from the statement that they oppose any changes to the UDRP especially given that trademark registration/ownership is the cornerstone to standing.
Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311-1714
P 703-575-5678 · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org <image001.jpg>
From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 5:29 PM To: Paul Tattersfield 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
I guess we could drill down a bit on the substance/procedures matter – although my guess is that they haven’t even thought about it, and were meaning to say that they want a new CRP for IGOs rather than any modified version of the UDRP.
What do others think?
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: Paul Tattersfield [mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 5:13 PM To: Phil Corwin Cc: Mason Cole; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique
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/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 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/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 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
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.
Learn the secrets to great leadership practices at the ASCD Conference on Educational Leadership, October 31–November 2, 2014 in Orlando, Florida. Featured presenters include Todd Whitaker, Baruti Kafele, Robyn Jackson, and Carol Ann Tomlinson. Register NOW at www.ascd.org/cel.
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is
confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or
have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any
attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
I agree, and I think would be unlikely to substantially improve the ability of IGOs to protect their identifiers (and, as a practical matter, would most likely mean that the policy process would take substantially longer). In short, I think it is a poor choice. But regardless, the GAC seems very intent on that direction. I've spoken a few times to the GAC on this issue, and they seem undeterred. David On 6 Nov 2014, at 7:16 am, Paul Keating <paul@law.es> wrote:
I honestly believe a separate IGO CRP would be a mess. It would entail a cross-gtld CRP based solely on the domain regardless of extension. It would also conflict directly with the cctld process, which is different in several instances (.eu, .co.uk, etc).
Regards,
Paul Keating
On 05 Nov 2014, at 11:37 pm, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman@ascd.org> wrote:
Although I am new to this discussion, I think that based on what I have read and heard so far, the GAC may be talking about a new CRP for IGO’s. IGO’s should be accorded CRP due to their special status. This would be a logical conclusion from the statement that they oppose any changes to the UDRP especially given that trademark registration/ownership is the cornerstone to standing.
Lori S. Schulman · General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311-1714
P 703-575-5678 · Lori.Schulman@ascd.org <image001.jpg>
From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 5:29 PM To: Paul Tattersfield 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
I guess we could drill down a bit on the substance/procedures matter – although my guess is that they haven’t even thought about it, and were meaning to say that they want a new CRP for IGOs rather than any modified version of the UDRP.
What do others think?
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: Paul Tattersfield [mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 5:13 PM To: Phil Corwin Cc: Mason Cole; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique
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/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 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/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 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
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.
Learn the secrets to great leadership practices at the ASCD Conference on Educational Leadership, October 31–November 2, 2014 in Orlando, Florida. Featured presenters include Todd Whitaker, Baruti Kafele, Robyn Jackson, and Carol Ann Tomlinson. Register NOW at www.ascd.org/cel. This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of
the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is
confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or
have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any
attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. _______________________________________________ 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
Hello Phil, Paul and everyone, On the procedural/substantive topic, please note that as part of the scoping exercise for a Policy Development Process (PDP) on a review of the UDRP in 2011, ICANN received a lot of information and community feedback regarding substantive and procedural matters related to the UDRP. The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center and the National Arbitration Forum also assisted staff with a webinar to assess these issues, and provided input via a survey of the UDRP providers. Although the GNSO Council eventually decided to NOT proceed with a review of the UDRP at the time, deciding instead to have a further Issue Report done in 2015 in respect of all the current rights protection mechanisms (RPMs), including those developed for the New gTLD Program (such as the URS), the comments and information received continue to be useful. In addition, the GAC also provided a statement at the time recommending a review take place only after some experience has been gleaned from the launch of New gTLDs. You¹ll find the public comments, WIPO, NAF and other provider survey responses, and the GAC and ALAC statements, in Annexes 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Final Issue Report: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/udrp/udrp-final-issue-report-03oct11-en.pdf The GNSO Council¹s decision to postpone the UDRP review and to possibly take up a fuller review of all RPMs can be found here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201112 Once again, I hope that this information is helpful. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 at 5:28 PM To: Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique
I guess we could drill down a bit on the substance/procedures matter although my guess is that they haven¹t even thought about it, and were meaning to say that they want a new CRP for IGOs rather than any modified version of the UDRP.
What do others think?
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: Paul Tattersfield [mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 5:13 PM To: Phil Corwin Cc: Mason Cole; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique
Mason's wording is very good. Do you guys think it would be worth building on Mason¹s 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 <tel:202-559-8597> /Direct 202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750> /Fax 202-255-6172 <tel: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 GAC¹s 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 GAC¹s 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 <tel:202-559-8597> /Direct 202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750> /Fax 202-255-6172 <tel: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 <tel:%2B1%20503%20908%207623>
Cell +1 503 407 2555 <tel:%2B1%20503%20407%202555>
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://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
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5315 / Virus Database: 4189/8462 - Release Date: 10/27/14 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
I am not sure if GAC as such has considered this to 100%, but I am sure that IGO’s wants to avoid any changes of the UDRP. But, to refer to our previous discussion of “new CRP vs modified version of the UDRP”, what we talk about (if not add/change to the current UDRP) is not to create a completely new dispute resolution procedure for IGO’s, but rather “a modified version of UDRP” that will get a separate name and Regulation. Our “IGOUDRP” can therefore well be the existing UDRP with some minor changes related to IGO’s, and perhaps formally limited to IGO complainants if they are officially listed as IGO’s - to avoid other organizations/companies to claim that they can use this “new” system. / Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you 5 november 2014, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> skrev:
I guess we could drill down a bit on the substance/procedures matter – although my guess is that they haven’t even thought about it, and were meaning to say that they want a new CRP for IGOs rather than any modified version of the UDRP.
What do others think?
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:Paul Tattersfield [mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 5:13 PM To: Phil Corwin Cc: Mason Cole; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique
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 <tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172 <tel: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 <tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172 <tel: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 <tel:%2B1%20503%20908%207623>
Cell +1 503 407 2555 <tel:%2B1%20503%20407%202555>
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - <http://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>
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - <http://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>
Petter, Creating some UDRP-like CRP for the domains at issue would create huge issues. In addition to issues noted by others: 1. It would apply on a domain level basis crossing all extensions. 2. It would require a change to the RAA and RA for each extension. 3. All of these Curative Rights mechanisms exist ONLY as a matter of contract (ICANN - Registrar (RAA) and Registrar - Registrant (RA)). Thus, any new system could not, as a matter of contract law, apply to existing domains until a new RAA is signed with every registrar and a new RA is signed with each registrant. Thus, a current registration for 10 years would mean the domain was exempt from the new CRP for 10 years until the domain was renewed. 4. The protection here exists ONLY as between members of the Paris Convention and/or WTO. How would it apply to a registrant holding a registration per an agreement subject to the laws of a non-PC or non-WTO member state? How would it apply to a registrant holding a registration per an agreement subject to the laws of a country who had objected to the particular name/symbol being included under 6ter? 5. Because the UDRP (and other CRPs) already apply "as to all" domains covered there under (e.g UDRP applies to ALL .COM domains), an amendment to the UDRP (and other CRPs) is required to exclude its application to domains falling under 6ter. 6. How is the registrar or,registrant to know that the new CRP is to apply to any particular domain? E.g. Is "expletive+IOC" included? What about "olympicburgers.com" or "OlympicPeninsulaCampingSites.com"? It becomes even worse with acronyms. I revert to something George K said in a prior email. ICANN has neither the right nor the obligation to create new legal rights. This was true during the heady drafting days of the UDRP and remains the case today IMHO. The more I look the more I feel that neither the GAC nor the IGOs have really thought this through. I fully understand that many of the IGOs both do great things and unlike the RC or IOC have very little money. However, and at the risk of sounding crass, it seems more of a case of late-comers to the party wanting to be relieved of consequences of their tardiness. This begs us to consider other alternatives such as informing them of the existence of .INT or even the possible creation of .IGO and advising that any new CRP be limited to those extensions. Regards, Paul Keating
On 06 Nov 2014, at 10:11 am, Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> wrote:
I am not sure if GAC as such has considered this to 100%, but I am sure that IGO’s wants to avoid any changes of the UDRP. But, to refer to our previous discussion of “new CRP vs modified version of the UDRP”, what we talk about (if not add/change to the current UDRP) is not to create a completely new dispute resolution procedure for IGO’s, but rather “a modified version of UDRP” that will get a separate name and Regulation. Our “IGOUDRP” can therefore well be the existing UDRP with some minor changes related to IGO’s, and perhaps formally limited to IGO complainants if they are officially listed as IGO’s - to avoid other organizations/companies to claim that they can use this “new” system.
/ Petter
-- Petter Rindforth, LL M
Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu
NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you
5 november 2014, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> skrev:
I guess we could drill down a bit on the substance/procedures matter – although my guess is that they haven’t even thought about it, and were meaning to say that they want a new CRP for IGOs rather than any modified version of the UDRP.
What do others think?
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: Paul Tattersfield [mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 5:13 PM To: Phil Corwin Cc: Mason Cole; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique
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/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
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/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
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
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
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Petter, Creating some UDRP-like CRP for the domains at issue would create huge issues. In addition to issues noted by others: 1. It would apply on a domain level basis crossing all extensions. 2. It would require a change to the RAA and RA for each extension. 3. All of these Curative Rights mechanisms exist ONLY as a matter of contract (ICANN - Registrar (RAA) and Registrar - Registrant (RA)). Thus, any new system could not, as a matter of contract law, apply to existing domains until a new RAA is signed with every registrar and a new RA is signed with each registrant. Thus, a current registration for 10 years would mean the domain was exempt from the new CRP for 10 years until the domain was renewed. 4. The protection here exists ONLY as between members of the Paris Convention and/or WTO. How would it apply to a registrant holding a registration per an agreement subject to the laws of a non-PC or non-WTO member state? How would it apply to a registrant holding a registration per an agreement subject to the laws of a country who had objected to the particular name/symbol being included under 6ter? 5. Because the UDRP (and other CRPs) already apply "as to all" domains covered there under (e.g UDRP applies to ALL .COM domains), an amendment to the UDRP (and other CRPs) is required to exclude its application to domains falling under 6ter. 6. How is the registrar or,registrant to know that the new CRP is to apply to any particular domain? E.g. Is "expletive+IOC" included? What about "olympicburgers.com" or "OlympicPeninsulaCampingSites.com"? It becomes even worse with acronyms. I revert to something George K said in a prior email. ICANN has neither the right nor the obligation to create new legal rights. This was true during the heady drafting days of the UDRP and remains the case today IMHO. The more I look the more I feel that neither the GAC nor the IGOs have really thought this through. I fully understand that many of the IGOs both do great things and unlike the RC or IOC have very little money. However, and at the risk of sounding crass, it seems more of a case of late-comers to the party wanting to be relieved of consequences of their tardiness. This begs us to consider other alternatives such as informing them of the existence of .INT or even the possible creation of .IGO and advising that any new CRP be limited to those extensions. Regards, Paul Keating
On 06 Nov 2014, at 10:11 am, Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> wrote:
I am not sure if GAC as such has considered this to 100%, but I am sure that IGO’s wants to avoid any changes of the UDRP. But, to refer to our previous discussion of “new CRP vs modified version of the UDRP”, what we talk about (if not add/change to the current UDRP) is not to create a completely new dispute resolution procedure for IGO’s, but rather “a modified version of UDRP” that will get a separate name and Regulation. Our “IGOUDRP” can therefore well be the existing UDRP with some minor changes related to IGO’s, and perhaps formally limited to IGO complainants if they are officially listed as IGO’s - to avoid other organizations/companies to claim that they can use this “new” system.
/ Petter
-- Petter Rindforth, LL M
Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu
NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you
5 november 2014, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> skrev:
I guess we could drill down a bit on the substance/procedures matter – although my guess is that they haven’t even thought about it, and were meaning to say that they want a new CRP for IGOs rather than any modified version of the UDRP.
What do others think?
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: Paul Tattersfield [mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 5:13 PM To: Phil Corwin Cc: Mason Cole; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique
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/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
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/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
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
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
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Petter, Creating some UDRP-like CRP for the domains at issue would create huge issues. In addition to issues noted by others: 1. It would apply on a domain level basis crossing all extensions. 2. It would require a change to the RAA and RA for each extension. 3. All of these Curative Rights mechanisms exist ONLY as a matter of contract (ICANN - Registrar (RAA) and Registrar - Registrant (RA)). Thus, any new system could not, as a matter of contract law, apply to existing domains until a new RAA is signed with every registrar and a new RA is signed with each registrant. Thus, a current registration for 10 years would mean the domain was exempt from the new CRP for 10 years until the domain was renewed. 4. The protection here exists ONLY as between members of the Paris Convention and/or WTO. How would it apply to a registrant holding a registration per an agreement subject to the laws of a non-PC or non-WTO member state? How would it apply to a registrant holding a registration per an agreement subject to the laws of a country who had objected to the particular name/symbol being included under 6ter? 5. Because the UDRP (and other CRPs) already apply "as to all" domains covered there under (e.g UDRP applies to ALL .COM domains), an amendment to the UDRP (and other CRPs) is required to exclude its application to domains falling under 6ter. 6. How is the registrar or,registrant to know that the new CRP is to apply to any particular domain? E.g. Is "expletive+IOC" included? What about "olympicburgers.com" or "OlympicPeninsulaCampingSites.com"? It becomes even worse with acronyms. I revert to something George K said in a prior email. ICANN has neither the right nor the obligation to create new legal rights. This was true during the heady drafting days of the UDRP and remains the case today IMHO. The more I look the more I feel that neither the GAC nor the IGOs have really thought this through. I fully understand that many of the IGOs both do great things and unlike the RC or IOC have very little money. However, and at the risk of sounding crass, it seems more of a case of late-comers to the party wanting to be relieved of consequences of their tardiness. This begs us to consider other alternatives such as informing them of the existence of .INT or even the possible creation of .IGO and advising that any new CRP be limited to those extensions. Regards, Paul Keating
On 06 Nov 2014, at 10:11 am, Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> wrote:
I am not sure if GAC as such has considered this to 100%, but I am sure that IGO’s wants to avoid any changes of the UDRP. But, to refer to our previous discussion of “new CRP vs modified version of the UDRP”, what we talk about (if not add/change to the current UDRP) is not to create a completely new dispute resolution procedure for IGO’s, but rather “a modified version of UDRP” that will get a separate name and Regulation. Our “IGOUDRP” can therefore well be the existing UDRP with some minor changes related to IGO’s, and perhaps formally limited to IGO complainants if they are officially listed as IGO’s - to avoid other organizations/companies to claim that they can use this “new” system.
/ Petter
-- Petter Rindforth, LL M
Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu
NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you
5 november 2014, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> skrev:
I guess we could drill down a bit on the substance/procedures matter – although my guess is that they haven’t even thought about it, and were meaning to say that they want a new CRP for IGOs rather than any modified version of the UDRP.
What do others think?
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: Paul Tattersfield [mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 5:13 PM To: Phil Corwin Cc: Mason Cole; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique
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/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
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/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
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
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
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Paul: Thanks for pointing out all the myriad issues that would arise if our WG determines that protection of IGO names and acronyms requires a new CRP. That is why it should be a last resort, only if we determine that they cannot make use of the UDRP and URS as is or with modest modifications. 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 From: Paul Keating [mailto:paul@law.es] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 8:48 AM To: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu Cc: Phil Corwin; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique Petter, Creating some UDRP-like CRP for the domains at issue would create huge issues. In addition to issues noted by others: 1. It would apply on a domain level basis crossing all extensions. 2. It would require a change to the RAA and RA for each extension. 3. All of these Curative Rights mechanisms exist ONLY as a matter of contract (ICANN - Registrar (RAA) and Registrar - Registrant (RA)). Thus, any new system could not, as a matter of contract law, apply to existing domains until a new RAA is signed with every registrar and a new RA is signed with each registrant. Thus, a current registration for 10 years would mean the domain was exempt from the new CRP for 10 years until the domain was renewed. 4. The protection here exists ONLY as between members of the Paris Convention and/or WTO. How would it apply to a registrant holding a registration per an agreement subject to the laws of a non-PC or non-WTO member state? How would it apply to a registrant holding a registration per an agreement subject to the laws of a country who had objected to the particular name/symbol being included under 6ter? 5. Because the UDRP (and other CRPs) already apply "as to all" domains covered there under (e.g UDRP applies to ALL .COM domains), an amendment to the UDRP (and other CRPs) is required to exclude its application to domains falling under 6ter. 6. How is the registrar or,registrant to know that the new CRP is to apply to any particular domain? E.g. Is "expletive+IOC" included? What about "olympicburgers.com<http://olympicburgers.com>" or "OlympicPeninsulaCampingSites.com<http://OlympicPeninsulaCampingSites.com>"? It becomes even worse with acronyms. I revert to something George K said in a prior email. ICANN has neither the right nor the obligation to create new legal rights. This was true during the heady drafting days of the UDRP and remains the case today IMHO. The more I look the more I feel that neither the GAC nor the IGOs have really thought this through. I fully understand that many of the IGOs both do great things and unlike the RC or IOC have very little money. However, and at the risk of sounding crass, it seems more of a case of late-comers to the party wanting to be relieved of consequences of their tardiness. This begs us to consider other alternatives such as informing them of the existence of .INT or even the possible creation of .IGO and advising that any new CRP be limited to those extensions. Regards, Paul Keating On 06 Nov 2014, at 10:11 am, Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu>> wrote: I am not sure if GAC as such has considered this to 100%, but I am sure that IGO’s wants to avoid any changes of the UDRP. But, to refer to our previous discussion of “new CRP vs modified version of the UDRP”, what we talk about (if not add/change to the current UDRP) is not to create a completely new dispute resolution procedure for IGO’s, but rather “a modified version of UDRP” that will get a separate name and Regulation. Our “IGOUDRP” can therefore well be the existing UDRP with some minor changes related to IGO’s, and perhaps formally limited to IGO complainants if they are officially listed as IGO’s - to avoid other organizations/companies to claim that they can use this “new” system. / Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu<http://www.fenixlegal.eu> Thank you 5 november 2014, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> skrev: I guess we could drill down a bit on the substance/procedures matter – although my guess is that they haven’t even thought about it, and were meaning to say that they want a new CRP for IGOs rather than any modified version of the UDRP. What do others think? 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: Paul Tattersfield [mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 5:13 PM To: Phil Corwin Cc: Mason Cole; gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] PLEASE RESPOND ASAP -- Revised Draft of Letter to Council regarding GAC Communique 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<mailto: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<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Mason Cole [mailto:mason@donuts.co<mailto:mason@donuts.co>] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 3:50 PM To: Phil Corwin Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto: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<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel: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<mailto: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<mailto:mason@donuts.co> Ofc +1 503 908 7623<tel:%2B1%20503%20908%207623> Cell +1 503 407 2555<tel:%2B1%20503%20407%202555> ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://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<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5315 / Virus Database: 4189/8462 - Release Date: 10/27/14 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
I am ok with the note. Best regards, Osvaldo Novoa El 5/11/2014, a las 17:57, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> escribió: 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/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 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<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto está dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene información que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Está prohibida cualquier utilización, difusión o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las específicas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicación que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Política de Seguridad de la Información This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.
Fine with me. Regards, Paul Keating
On 05 Nov 2014, at 8:56 pm, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> 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/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 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
participants (10)
-
David Cake -
Lori Schulman -
Mary Wong -
Mason Cole -
Nat Cohen -
Novoa, Osvaldo -
Paul Keating -
Paul Tattersfield -
Petter Rindforth -
Phil Corwin