FW: Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June
Hello all, Attached are our suggestions. As it appears that most, if not all, of us agree with comments made by Paul, we’ve based our comments on his version. Regards, Jim 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 Poncelet Ileleji Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:28 AM To: Jay Chapman Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June Same here I concur with George Kind Regards Poncelet. On 11 June 2015 at 14:25, Jay Chapman <jay@digimedia.com<mailto:jay@digimedia.com>> wrote: I agree with George as well. Jay On Jun 10, 2015 8:35 AM, "Paul Keating" <Paul@law.es<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto: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<tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889> Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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 -- 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 www.diplointernetgovernance.org<http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org> James L. Bikoff<http://www.sgrlaw.com/attorneys/profiles/bikoff-james/> | Attorney at Law 202-263-4341 phone 202-263-4329 fax www.sgrlaw.com<http://www.sgrlaw.com> jbikoff@sgrlaw.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgrlaw.com> 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007 [cid:image2d866a.JPG@217274ec.478529f6]<http://www.sgrlaw.com> Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
Hi folks, With regards to Jim's suggested edits, they seem reasonable for the most part. My main concern is the language on page 1, paragraph 2: "which provide an arbitration alternative for parties" UDRP and URS are *not* arbitrations per se (true arbitration is granted judicial deference). For example, see: http://www.balough.com/udrp-not-federal-arbitration/ "The court found that the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) does not qualify as an arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. (FAA) Under the FAA, decisions by an arbitrator can only be reversed by a federal court if there was misconduct by the arbitrator or a manifest disregard for the law." See also see the bottom of page 11, and page 12 of: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/published/021396.p.pdf or do a Google search for: "UDRP" "Federal Arbitration Act" (with the quotes set out above exactly) to find other examples. I would suggest removing the words "which provide an arbitration alternative for parties". There's other more precise language (e.g. at top of page 2, "mandatory administrative proceedings") describing them already. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Bikoff, James <jbikoff@sgrlaw.com> wrote:
Hello all,
Attached are our suggestions. As it appears that most, if not all, of us agree with comments made by Paul, we’ve based our comments on his version.
Regards,
Jim
*From:* gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Poncelet Ileleji *Sent:* Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:28 AM *To:* Jay Chapman *Cc:* gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June
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 <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org> *
James L. Bikoff <http://www.sgrlaw.com/attorneys/profiles/bikoff-james/> | Attorney at Law
202-263-4341 *phone* 202-263-4329 *fax*
*www.sgrlaw.com <http://www.sgrlaw.com> jbikoff@sgrlaw.com <jbikoff@sgrlaw.com>*
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007
<http://www.sgrlaw.com> Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP
------------------------------ Confidentiality Notice This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
George i agree (you are correct) with your comment about arbitration. I ask that the la guste be changed to "an alternative to litigation." Sincerely, Paul Keating, Esq.
On Jun 12, 2015, at 2:03 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
With regards to Jim's suggested edits, they seem reasonable for the most part. My main concern is the language on page 1, paragraph 2:
"which provide an arbitration alternative for parties"
UDRP and URS are *not* arbitrations per se (true arbitration is granted judicial deference). For example, see:
http://www.balough.com/udrp-not-federal-arbitration/
"The court found that the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) does not qualify as an arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. (FAA) Under the FAA, decisions by an arbitrator can only be reversed by a federal court if there was misconduct by the arbitrator or a manifest disregard for the law."
See also see the bottom of page 11, and page 12 of:
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/published/021396.p.pdf
or do a Google search for:
"UDRP" "Federal Arbitration Act"
(with the quotes set out above exactly) to find other examples. I would suggest removing the words "which provide an arbitration alternative for parties". There's other more precise language (e.g. at top of page 2, "mandatory administrative proceedings") describing them already.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Bikoff, James <jbikoff@sgrlaw.com> wrote:
Hello all,
Attached are our suggestions. As it appears that most, if not all, of us agree with comments made by Paul, we’ve based our comments on his version.
Regards,
Jim
From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Poncelet Ileleji Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:28 AM To: Jay Chapman Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June
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 www.waigf.org www.aficta.org www.itag.gm www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 www.diplointernetgovernance.org
James L. Bikoff | Attorney at Law
202-263-4341 phone 202-263-4329 fax www.sgrlaw.com jbikoff@sgrlaw.com
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007
Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP
Confidentiality Notice This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (3)
-
Bikoff, James -
George Kirikos -
Paul Keating