Follow up questions for IGO small group on sovereign immunity
Dear WG members, Please find attached a draft note addressed to the IGO small group that was prepared by the WG co-chairs and staff, based on recent WG discussions and research done to date on the sovereign immunity issue. The co-chairs propose that following review and approval from the WG, they send these questions along with a cover note to the IGO small group, in the hope that the IGO representatives will continue to be responsive and helpful to ICANN¹s efforts to work through the matter. The cover note will include the WG¹s thanks to the IGO small group for its January response, along with an update on the WG¹s current thinking on the ³standing² issue and Article 6ter of the Paris Convention. Please reply to the list via email with any comments you or your groups may have on the document as soon as you can. For your information, you will see from the draft that we have added another UDRP decision to the World Bank example that George provided earlier in our deliberations this second case concerns the Bank for International Settlements, which also is on the GAC list of IGOs dating from 2013. I attach also an updated version of the staff Briefing Note on sovereign immunity and IGOs that was circulated last week this update adds a reference to the Canadian statute that the Canadian Supreme Court relies on in the NAFO case which George brought to the WG¹s attention last week. Finally, please note that the GNSO Council has been updated on the WG¹s progress during our recent face-to-face facilitated meeting in Singapore, and will take up at its meeting on Thursday the specific question of whether they agree with the WG¹s thinking that the list of IGOs in the WIPO database who requested Article 6ter protection should be the list upon which the WG¹s recommendations (if any) will be based, especially for ³standing² and in principled preference to the original GAC list, which contains IGOs selected based on fulfillment of the .int eligibility criteria and which was the list that our WG was chartered to discuss. We will provide the WG with a further update following the Council¹s deliberations on this point later this week. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
There are more than simply 2 instances of IGOs bringing UDRPs. In particular, I managed to find that the Bank for International Settlements has five (5) other UDRPs that weren't referenced, namely: (1) bisettlement.com -- http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0571.html (2) bfisonline.net -- http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0575.html (3) bisonlinedept.com -- http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0987.html (4) bankforinternationalsettlement.com - http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0986.html (5) bfis.net -- http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0984.html I also found another one that was brought, and then terminated, for "United States Fund for UNICEF", in relation to unicefonline.net/org: (6) http://www.udrpsearch.com/wipo/d2007-1920 (both domains appear to have been transferred to the US Fund for UNICEF) Of course, there was also that UNITAID case we've discussed before, brought by the law firm as a proxy: (7) http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1922 involving unitaid.biz/com/info/net/org. Also, the United Nations World Food Programme brought a UDRP that was terminated: (8) http://www.udrpsearch.com/wipo/d2005-0099 http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisionsx/list.jsp?prefix=D&year=2005&se... regarding wfpafrica.com, wfpasia.com, wfpenvironment.com, wfpnews.com worldfoodprogram.com, worldfoodprogrammes.com (seems some of those domains are now available!) Given the increase in the number of discovered cases, one might need to rethink the use of phrases like "limited instances" (first paragraph of page 2), or "rare decisions" (last paragraph of page 2). Given the small number of IGOs in relation to all potential complainants, it might turn out that they've filed a statistically proportionate number of cases, all things considered (which might inform the question as to whether they've actually been deterred from filing cases, as they suggest -- statistics might prove otherwise). As for the questions on the list, I think Question #5 isn't one where the IGOs can give an authoritative answer -- they're not the individuals being prejudiced. IGOs should should only be asked questions that are within their knowledge. Similarly #6 isn't something they would be able to answer -- it's really something for us to answer (like #5). One might expand on #4, in particular ask directly about IGOs initiating their own actions in national courts, whether they *ever* do that themselves -- we already know of at least 2 cases, as discussed previously: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2015-March/000302.html They should give us more examples where they've brought cases (e.g. in other countries). I would be amazed if those were the only 2 cases ever brought (indeed, I'd be skeptical if they couldn't produce others). Why should IGOs be treated differently, if they've brought cases themselves before the courts? One might also ask in relation to Paul Keating's idea that if the nature of the mutual jurisdiction (waiver of immunity) was expressly made limited, i.e. circumscribed to apply *only* to the domain name under dispute for IGOs, and nothing else (i.e. not to attack the assets of the IGOs), whether that accommodates the concerns of the IGOs. For footnote #5, one might want to directly reference the UNITAID case, in case the IGOs aren't aware of that technique. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear WG members,
Please find attached a draft note addressed to the IGO small group that was prepared by the WG co-chairs and staff, based on recent WG discussions and research done to date on the sovereign immunity issue. The co-chairs propose that following review and approval from the WG, they send these questions along with a cover note to the IGO small group, in the hope that the IGO representatives will continue to be responsive and helpful to ICANN’s efforts to work through the matter. The cover note will include the WG’s thanks to the IGO small group for its January response, along with an update on the WG’s current thinking on the “standing” issue and Article 6ter of the Paris Convention.
Please reply to the list via email with any comments you or your groups may have on the document as soon as you can. For your information, you will see from the draft that we have added another UDRP decision to the World Bank example that George provided earlier in our deliberations – this second case concerns the Bank for International Settlements, which also is on the GAC list of IGOs dating from 2013. I attach also an updated version of the staff Briefing Note on sovereign immunity and IGOs that was circulated last week – this update adds a reference to the Canadian statute that the Canadian Supreme Court relies on in the NAFO case which George brought to the WG’s attention last week.
Finally, please note that the GNSO Council has been updated on the WG’s progress during our recent face-to-face facilitated meeting in Singapore, and will take up at its meeting on Thursday the specific question of whether they agree with the WG’s thinking that the list of IGOs in the WIPO database who requested Article 6ter protection should be the list upon which the WG’s recommendations (if any) will be based, especially for “standing” and in principled preference to the original GAC list, which contains IGOs selected based on fulfillment of the .int eligibility criteria and which was the list that our WG was chartered to discuss. We will provide the WG with a further update following the Council’s deliberations on this point later this week.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 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
Hello George and everyone, As always, thank you for the additional resources! If the WG would prefer, we can add these references to the note, indicating that instead of ³at least two² instances we have found ³several². On the use of terms like ³rare² and ³limited², while I would suggest retaining them where they refer to the IGOs¹ own feedback, we can certainly rephrase those other parts where it seems to be the view of the WG as well. We can add Paul Keating¹s question about a ³limited waiver² to Question #3. On Question #4, we can add George's suggested specific question about whether IGOs ever initiate court action themselves and in their own names and, if so, whether they can provide us with examples. We can also add a reference to the Unitaid case in footnote 5. Finally, on Questions #5 and #6, I would suggest retaining them in the note nevertheless. I understand George¹s point, but it may be helpful to indicate the concerns of this WG so that while the IGOs may not be in a position to provide a full or authoritative answer, they will have the opportunity to explain why these concerns are misplaced (if that is what they believe to be the case). Thank you for the substantive feedback, George, and thanks in advance to others who may weigh in as well. Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org -----Original Message----- From: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 18:57 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Follow up questions for IGO small group on sovereign immunity
There are more than simply 2 instances of IGOs bringing UDRPs. In particular, I managed to find that the Bank for International Settlements has five (5) other UDRPs that weren't referenced, namely:
(1) bisettlement.com -- http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0571.html
(2) bfisonline.net -- http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0575.html
(3) bisonlinedept.com -- http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0987.html
(4) bankforinternationalsettlement.com - http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0986.html
(5) bfis.net -- http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0984.html
I also found another one that was brought, and then terminated, for "United States Fund for UNICEF", in relation to unicefonline.net/org:
(6) http://www.udrpsearch.com/wipo/d2007-1920
(both domains appear to have been transferred to the US Fund for UNICEF)
Of course, there was also that UNITAID case we've discussed before, brought by the law firm as a proxy:
(7) http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1922
involving unitaid.biz/com/info/net/org.
Also, the United Nations World Food Programme brought a UDRP that was terminated:
(8) http://www.udrpsearch.com/wipo/d2005-0099 http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisionsx/list.jsp?prefix=D&year=2005& seq_min=1&seq_max=199
regarding wfpafrica.com, wfpasia.com, wfpenvironment.com, wfpnews.com worldfoodprogram.com, worldfoodprogrammes.com
(seems some of those domains are now available!)
Given the increase in the number of discovered cases, one might need to rethink the use of phrases like "limited instances" (first paragraph of page 2), or "rare decisions" (last paragraph of page 2). Given the small number of IGOs in relation to all potential complainants, it might turn out that they've filed a statistically proportionate number of cases, all things considered (which might inform the question as to whether they've actually been deterred from filing cases, as they suggest -- statistics might prove otherwise).
As for the questions on the list, I think Question #5 isn't one where the IGOs can give an authoritative answer -- they're not the individuals being prejudiced. IGOs should should only be asked questions that are within their knowledge. Similarly #6 isn't something they would be able to answer -- it's really something for us to answer (like #5).
One might expand on #4, in particular ask directly about IGOs initiating their own actions in national courts, whether they *ever* do that themselves -- we already know of at least 2 cases, as discussed previously:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2015-March/000302.html
They should give us more examples where they've brought cases (e.g. in other countries). I would be amazed if those were the only 2 cases ever brought (indeed, I'd be skeptical if they couldn't produce others). Why should IGOs be treated differently, if they've brought cases themselves before the courts?
One might also ask in relation to Paul Keating's idea that if the nature of the mutual jurisdiction (waiver of immunity) was expressly made limited, i.e. circumscribed to apply *only* to the domain name under dispute for IGOs, and nothing else (i.e. not to attack the assets of the IGOs), whether that accommodates the concerns of the IGOs.
For footnote #5, one might want to directly reference the UNITAID case, in case the IGOs aren't aware of that technique.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear WG members,
Please find attached a draft note addressed to the IGO small group that was prepared by the WG co-chairs and staff, based on recent WG discussions and research done to date on the sovereign immunity issue. The co-chairs propose that following review and approval from the WG, they send these questions along with a cover note to the IGO small group, in the hope that the IGO representatives will continue to be responsive and helpful to ICANN¹s efforts to work through the matter. The cover note will include the WG¹s thanks to the IGO small group for its January response, along with an update on the WG¹s current thinking on the ³standing² issue and Article 6ter of the Paris Convention.
Please reply to the list via email with any comments you or your groups may have on the document as soon as you can. For your information, you will see from the draft that we have added another UDRP decision to the World Bank example that George provided earlier in our deliberations this second case concerns the Bank for International Settlements, which also is on the GAC list of IGOs dating from 2013. I attach also an updated version of the staff Briefing Note on sovereign immunity and IGOs that was circulated last week this update adds a reference to the Canadian statute that the Canadian Supreme Court relies on in the NAFO case which George brought to the WG¹s attention last week.
Finally, please note that the GNSO Council has been updated on the WG¹s progress during our recent face-to-face facilitated meeting in Singapore, and will take up at its meeting on Thursday the specific question of whether they agree with the WG¹s thinking that the list of IGOs in the WIPO database who requested Article 6ter protection should be the list upon which the WG¹s recommendations (if any) will be based, especially for ³standing² and in principled preference to the original GAC list, which contains IGOs selected based on fulfillment of the .int eligibility criteria and which was the list that our WG was chartered to discuss. We will provide the WG with a further update following the Council¹s deliberations on this point later this week.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 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
Mary, please kindly include this in the file for the WG and circulate to the extent this email does not reach all participants. I agree with George. The most striking thing about both the research report and the proposed letter was that it used as foundational points, asserted "facts" that were not substantiated. Examples: 1. Those raised by George below. 2. Statements that IGOs have complained about the current set up with Mutual Jurisdiction. I have seen this phrase before but have never seen a listing of those NGOs and INGOs who have raised this issue. Before embarking on anything we should ask for those complaining parties to be identified. THEN we should compare that number and type with the universe of IGOs/NGOs to see if this is approaching a serious issue. 3. Limitation of issues. The issue is not merely jurisdictional immunity but also includes liability immunity. In any action brought by a losing respondent, the respondent (now the plaintiff) has the ability to claim damages, including attorneys' fees and costs. A. Jurisdictional Immunity. In those US courts having dealt with this issue (including parvi.org (see attached complaint, Default Motion and Final Judgment). The judgment resulted in a 100K for interference and 27K for attorneys' fees and costs. The City of Paris (though not an NGO/INGO has a long history of such behavior. B. Liability immunity. RECOVERY of any judgment is subject to specific collection rules that vary by jurisdiction. For example, in the US, the FISA governs collection as well and requires an additional level of service of the judgment so that the defendant (now judgment debtor) can assert immunity claims as to itself or any specific assets. C. Tied to the above, we have no real understanding of how litigious the NGOs/INGOs have been. A search of the US litigation (via PACER) would be very time-consuming but doable by ICANN Staff. This would obviously not answer the issue as to non-US jurisdictions. I thus believe that any letter should request not only the identity of the complaining NGOs/INGOs, but also request that they provide a listing of any and all litigation or other quasi-judicial proceedings they have been involved in. To the extent ICANN staff, the ICANN legal dept. or the GAC is aware (or can find out) the answer should be given as to any other NGO/INGO litigation/quasi-litigation activities as well. Without the above it is impossible to understand the real nature of the asserted "problem". Unless the problem is indeed prevalent, I would suggest that any change is unwarranted given the potential of disruption and cost of implementation (again remembering that the UDRP is based upon contract and ANY change requires modification of many contracts at many levels (Registry?ICANN, Registry/Registrar and Registrar/Registrant). 4. The entire purpose of the UDRP was premised on the foundational stone that the UDRP was not intended to grant greater rights in the cyber-world than those which existed in the "real" world (Reference WIPO: Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process - copy attached). As a result I see no reason to provide any particular participant in the UDRP with any greater rights or privileges then they would have in the "real" world. In the real world, an NGO/INGO must pursue legal claims of trademark infringement using the judicial process. To do so they must weigh the importance of asserting their "rights" against the risk that such assertive behavior entails. Thus, the proposed letter IMHO requires substantial revision to include these types of comments so that we are able to obtain a clear picture in the form of any response and not merely a generalized statement of desires that are unsupported by any factual or legal basis. Regards, Paul Keating On 3/17/15 11:57 PM, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com> wrote:
There are more than simply 2 instances of IGOs bringing UDRPs. In particular, I managed to find that the Bank for International Settlements has five (5) other UDRPs that weren't referenced, namely:
(1) bisettlement.com -- http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0571.html
(2) bfisonline.net -- http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0575.html
(3) bisonlinedept.com -- http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0987.html
(4) bankforinternationalsettlement.com - http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0986.html
(5) bfis.net -- http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0984.html
I also found another one that was brought, and then terminated, for "United States Fund for UNICEF", in relation to unicefonline.net/org:
(6) http://www.udrpsearch.com/wipo/d2007-1920
(both domains appear to have been transferred to the US Fund for UNICEF)
Of course, there was also that UNITAID case we've discussed before, brought by the law firm as a proxy:
(7) http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1922
involving unitaid.biz/com/info/net/org.
Also, the United Nations World Food Programme brought a UDRP that was terminated:
(8) http://www.udrpsearch.com/wipo/d2005-0099 http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisionsx/list.jsp?prefix=D&year=2005& seq_min=1&seq_max=199
regarding wfpafrica.com, wfpasia.com, wfpenvironment.com, wfpnews.com worldfoodprogram.com, worldfoodprogrammes.com
(seems some of those domains are now available!)
Given the increase in the number of discovered cases, one might need to rethink the use of phrases like "limited instances" (first paragraph of page 2), or "rare decisions" (last paragraph of page 2). Given the small number of IGOs in relation to all potential complainants, it might turn out that they've filed a statistically proportionate number of cases, all things considered (which might inform the question as to whether they've actually been deterred from filing cases, as they suggest -- statistics might prove otherwise).
As for the questions on the list, I think Question #5 isn't one where the IGOs can give an authoritative answer -- they're not the individuals being prejudiced. IGOs should should only be asked questions that are within their knowledge. Similarly #6 isn't something they would be able to answer -- it's really something for us to answer (like #5).
One might expand on #4, in particular ask directly about IGOs initiating their own actions in national courts, whether they *ever* do that themselves -- we already know of at least 2 cases, as discussed previously:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2015-March/000302.html
They should give us more examples where they've brought cases (e.g. in other countries). I would be amazed if those were the only 2 cases ever brought (indeed, I'd be skeptical if they couldn't produce others). Why should IGOs be treated differently, if they've brought cases themselves before the courts?
One might also ask in relation to Paul Keating's idea that if the nature of the mutual jurisdiction (waiver of immunity) was expressly made limited, i.e. circumscribed to apply *only* to the domain name under dispute for IGOs, and nothing else (i.e. not to attack the assets of the IGOs), whether that accommodates the concerns of the IGOs.
For footnote #5, one might want to directly reference the UNITAID case, in case the IGOs aren't aware of that technique.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear WG members,
Please find attached a draft note addressed to the IGO small group that was prepared by the WG co-chairs and staff, based on recent WG discussions and research done to date on the sovereign immunity issue. The co-chairs propose that following review and approval from the WG, they send these questions along with a cover note to the IGO small group, in the hope that the IGO representatives will continue to be responsive and helpful to ICANN¹s efforts to work through the matter. The cover note will include the WG¹s thanks to the IGO small group for its January response, along with an update on the WG¹s current thinking on the ³standing² issue and Article 6ter of the Paris Convention.
Please reply to the list via email with any comments you or your groups may have on the document as soon as you can. For your information, you will see from the draft that we have added another UDRP decision to the World Bank example that George provided earlier in our deliberations this second case concerns the Bank for International Settlements, which also is on the GAC list of IGOs dating from 2013. I attach also an updated version of the staff Briefing Note on sovereign immunity and IGOs that was circulated last week this update adds a reference to the Canadian statute that the Canadian Supreme Court relies on in the NAFO case which George brought to the WG¹s attention last week.
Finally, please note that the GNSO Council has been updated on the WG¹s progress during our recent face-to-face facilitated meeting in Singapore, and will take up at its meeting on Thursday the specific question of whether they agree with the WG¹s thinking that the list of IGOs in the WIPO database who requested Article 6ter protection should be the list upon which the WG¹s recommendations (if any) will be based, especially for ³standing² and in principled preference to the original GAC list, which contains IGOs selected based on fulfillment of the .int eligibility criteria and which was the list that our WG was chartered to discuss. We will provide the WG with a further update following the Council¹s deliberations on this point later this week.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 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
Paul made some excellent suggestions for additional questions. I would suggest, in the same vein as his section #2, asking the IGOs to elaborate on and quantify the extent of the alleged "cybersquatting" activity. Are we talking about 50 alleged infringing domain names? Are we talking about 50,000 alleged infringing domain names? How are they gathering those statistics, and monitoring the extent of the problem? To what extent is the cybersquatting taking place on gTLDs, as opposed to ccTLDs? Don't the IGOs face identical issues of 'standing' and exposure to 'legal jurisdiction' in ccTLD disputes? For instance, in the ADR rules of the EU: http://eu.adr.eu/html/en/adr/adr_rules/eu%20adr%20rules.pdf paragraph B.1.(b)(14) says (on page 9): "State that the Complainant will submit, with respect to any challenges to a decision in the ADR Proceeding revoking or transferring the domain name, to the jurisdiction of the courts in at least one specified Mutual Jurisdiction in accordance with Paragraph A1" For the DRS procedure of .uk domain names, it states in section 3(c)(viii): http://www.nominet.org.uk/disputes/when-use-drs/policy-and-procedure/drs-pro... "state that the Complainant will submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts with respect to any legal proceedings seeking to reverse the effect of a Decision requiring the suspension, cancellation, transfer or other amendment to a Domain Name registration, and that the Complainant agrees that any such legal proceedings will be governed by English law;" If we go back to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) UDRPs that I sent to the list yesterday, many of the domain names they won in the complaints were not renewed by BIS, and are currently available for registration. That might indicate that the problem has diminished over time (especially as mechanisms to monetize infringing domain names have decreased over the past 5 years, e.g. pay-per-click domain name parking, affiliate programs, etc.). Perhaps it would also be prudent to ask what other steps the IGOs take, in keeping with their duty to mitigate damages (e.g. do they make complaints to webhosting companies, do they file DMCA complaints for copyright infringement if alleged cybersquatters are also infringing on copyrighted material, do they make complaints to PPC providers like Google, do they make complaints to payment processors like PayPal, VISA, Mastercard, etc.) Sincerely, George On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
Mary, please kindly include this in the file for the WG and circulate to the extent this email does not reach all participants.
I agree with George.
The most striking thing about both the research report and the proposed letter was that it used as foundational points, asserted "facts" that were not substantiated. Examples:
1. Those raised by George below.
2. Statements that IGOs have complained about the current set up with Mutual Jurisdiction. I have seen this phrase before but have never seen a listing of those NGOs and INGOs who have raised this issue. Before embarking on anything we should ask for those complaining parties to be identified. THEN we should compare that number and type with the universe of IGOs/NGOs to see if this is approaching a serious issue.
3. Limitation of issues. The issue is not merely jurisdictional immunity but also includes liability immunity. In any action brought by a losing respondent, the respondent (now the plaintiff) has the ability to claim damages, including attorneys' fees and costs.
A. Jurisdictional Immunity. In those US courts having dealt with this issue (including parvi.org (see attached complaint, Default Motion and Final Judgment). The judgment resulted in a 100K for interference and 27K for attorneys' fees and costs. The City of Paris (though not an NGO/INGO has a long history of such behavior.
B. Liability immunity. RECOVERY of any judgment is subject to specific collection rules that vary by jurisdiction. For example, in the US, the FISA governs collection as well and requires an additional level of service of the judgment so that the defendant (now judgment debtor) can assert immunity claims as to itself or any specific assets.
C. Tied to the above, we have no real understanding of how litigious the NGOs/INGOs have been. A search of the US litigation (via PACER) would be very time-consuming but doable by ICANN Staff. This would obviously not answer the issue as to non-US jurisdictions. I thus believe that any letter should request not only the identity of the complaining NGOs/INGOs, but also request that they provide a listing of any and all litigation or other quasi-judicial proceedings they have been involved in. To the extent ICANN staff, the ICANN legal dept. or the GAC is aware (or can find out) the answer should be given as to any other NGO/INGO litigation/quasi-litigation activities as well.
Without the above it is impossible to understand the real nature of the asserted "problem". Unless the problem is indeed prevalent, I would suggest that any change is unwarranted given the potential of disruption and cost of implementation (again remembering that the UDRP is based upon contract and ANY change requires modification of many contracts at many levels (Registry?ICANN, Registry/Registrar and Registrar/Registrant).
4. The entire purpose of the UDRP was premised on the foundational stone that the UDRP was not intended to grant greater rights in the cyber-world than those which existed in the "real" world (Reference WIPO: Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process - copy attached). As a result I see no reason to provide any particular participant in the UDRP with any greater rights or privileges then they would have in the "real" world. In the real world, an NGO/INGO must pursue legal claims of trademark infringement using the judicial process. To do so they must weigh the importance of asserting their "rights" against the risk that such assertive behavior entails.
Thus, the proposed letter IMHO requires substantial revision to include these types of comments so that we are able to obtain a clear picture in the form of any response and not merely a generalized statement of desires that are unsupported by any factual or legal basis.
Regards,
Paul Keating
On 3/17/15 11:57 PM, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com> wrote:
There are more than simply 2 instances of IGOs bringing UDRPs. In particular, I managed to find that the Bank for International Settlements has five (5) other UDRPs that weren't referenced, namely:
(1) bisettlement.com -- http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0571.html
(2) bfisonline.net -- http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0575.html
(3) bisonlinedept.com -- http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0987.html
(4) bankforinternationalsettlement.com - http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0986.html
(5) bfis.net -- http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0984.html
I also found another one that was brought, and then terminated, for "United States Fund for UNICEF", in relation to unicefonline.net/org:
(6) http://www.udrpsearch.com/wipo/d2007-1920
(both domains appear to have been transferred to the US Fund for UNICEF)
Of course, there was also that UNITAID case we've discussed before, brought by the law firm as a proxy:
(7) http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1922
involving unitaid.biz/com/info/net/org.
Also, the United Nations World Food Programme brought a UDRP that was terminated:
(8) http://www.udrpsearch.com/wipo/d2005-0099 http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisionsx/list.jsp?prefix=D&year=2005& seq_min=1&seq_max=199
regarding wfpafrica.com, wfpasia.com, wfpenvironment.com, wfpnews.com worldfoodprogram.com, worldfoodprogrammes.com
(seems some of those domains are now available!)
Given the increase in the number of discovered cases, one might need to rethink the use of phrases like "limited instances" (first paragraph of page 2), or "rare decisions" (last paragraph of page 2). Given the small number of IGOs in relation to all potential complainants, it might turn out that they've filed a statistically proportionate number of cases, all things considered (which might inform the question as to whether they've actually been deterred from filing cases, as they suggest -- statistics might prove otherwise).
As for the questions on the list, I think Question #5 isn't one where the IGOs can give an authoritative answer -- they're not the individuals being prejudiced. IGOs should should only be asked questions that are within their knowledge. Similarly #6 isn't something they would be able to answer -- it's really something for us to answer (like #5).
One might expand on #4, in particular ask directly about IGOs initiating their own actions in national courts, whether they *ever* do that themselves -- we already know of at least 2 cases, as discussed previously:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2015-March/000302.html
They should give us more examples where they've brought cases (e.g. in other countries). I would be amazed if those were the only 2 cases ever brought (indeed, I'd be skeptical if they couldn't produce others). Why should IGOs be treated differently, if they've brought cases themselves before the courts?
One might also ask in relation to Paul Keating's idea that if the nature of the mutual jurisdiction (waiver of immunity) was expressly made limited, i.e. circumscribed to apply *only* to the domain name under dispute for IGOs, and nothing else (i.e. not to attack the assets of the IGOs), whether that accommodates the concerns of the IGOs.
For footnote #5, one might want to directly reference the UNITAID case, in case the IGOs aren't aware of that technique.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear WG members,
Please find attached a draft note addressed to the IGO small group that was prepared by the WG co-chairs and staff, based on recent WG discussions and research done to date on the sovereign immunity issue. The co-chairs propose that following review and approval from the WG, they send these questions along with a cover note to the IGO small group, in the hope that the IGO representatives will continue to be responsive and helpful to ICANN¹s efforts to work through the matter. The cover note will include the WG¹s thanks to the IGO small group for its January response, along with an update on the WG¹s current thinking on the ³standing² issue and Article 6ter of the Paris Convention.
Please reply to the list via email with any comments you or your groups may have on the document as soon as you can. For your information, you will see from the draft that we have added another UDRP decision to the World Bank example that George provided earlier in our deliberations this second case concerns the Bank for International Settlements, which also is on the GAC list of IGOs dating from 2013. I attach also an updated version of the staff Briefing Note on sovereign immunity and IGOs that was circulated last week this update adds a reference to the Canadian statute that the Canadian Supreme Court relies on in the NAFO case which George brought to the WG¹s attention last week.
Finally, please note that the GNSO Council has been updated on the WG¹s progress during our recent face-to-face facilitated meeting in Singapore, and will take up at its meeting on Thursday the specific question of whether they agree with the WG¹s thinking that the list of IGOs in the WIPO database who requested Article 6ter protection should be the list upon which the WG¹s recommendations (if any) will be based, especially for ³standing² and in principled preference to the original GAC list, which contains IGOs selected based on fulfillment of the .int eligibility criteria and which was the list that our WG was chartered to discuss. We will provide the WG with a further update following the Council¹s deliberations on this point later this week.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 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
Hello again everyone, Attached is a revised version of the proposed note to the IGO small group, in which most of the suggestions made by Paul and George (via email) and Val (on the WG call yesterday) have been incorporated.As the Track-Changes version now looks somewhat messy, I’ve attached also a clean version where the changes and additions have been highlighted in yellow for your convenient review. Please note generally that in the interests of brevity we have removed the last question from the original draft on whether removal of the Mutual Jurisdiction clause would amount to endorsing the old model of absolute immunity as well as the original paragraph in the first page that detailed the UDRP (since we thought this would not be necessary given the extent of our interactions with the IGO already on the topic). There were a few suggestions made that we either did not incorporate, or amended slightly, so I’d like to explain the reasons for our thinking on those items. Please let us know if we got something wrong! First, on prior expressions of the IGOs’ concern over agreement to Mutual Jurisdiction - while not referring specifically to the UDRP or sovereign immunity, the IGOs' communications with ICANN have generally included references to IGOs as organizations created by treaties and subject to international law (see, e.g., the December 2011 Open Letter from over two dozen legal counsel from various IGOs: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/igo-counsels-to-beckstrom-et-al -13dec11-en.pdf). More specifically, in the IGOs’ November 2013 response to the ICANN Board’s New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) regarding the NGPC’s proposal for IGO protections, the IGO group explicitly stated that the URS does not acknowledge the special status of IGOs, since submitting to national jurisdiction runs counter to IGO immunities: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/igo-coalition-to-gac-0 1nov13-en.pdf. As we have noted previously, sovereign immunity is a generally recognized principle of public international law, and thus the question of its application to IGOs is not so much whether it applies or not, but rather the proper scope of its applicability where an IGO is concerned. Secondly, on other aspects of immunity (e.g. enforcement immunity) - while that is certainly a major issue in international law, our understanding is that the conceptual difficulty here is the blanket agreement to submit to jurisdiction when filing a complaint under the UDRP or URS. Because the remedies in question for domain names are cancellation, transfer or (under the URS) suspension, enforcement would be a question for the registrar or the respondent and would not raise immunity issues for an IGO. We therefore thought it would be clearer to limit the note and questions to the jurisdictional issue under the UDRP and URS. Thirdly, on the extent of litigation that IGOs have launched - we have added to the note a specific question about whether IGOs have initiated litigation against alleged trademark infringers and cybersquatters since the adoption of the UDRP (noting that the two cases that George provided predated the UDRP). We hope this is a more direct way of finding out the extent of the problem, particularly as we are not certain that generating a list of every court action that an IGO may have initiated (whether in the US or elsewhere) would demonstrate the particular issue in respect of domain names and the alleged problems with the UDRP and URS. Fourthly, as to the danger of creating additional or new legal rights for IGOs - that is an issue that this WG, the GNSO and the GAC has previously recognized, including (as Paul noted) in the WIPO-2 Process over a decade ago. Recently, the NGPC wrote to the GAC to seek GAC input on this specific issue, citing our WG: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/chalaby-to-schneider-2 2jan15-en.pdf. As such, we thought that the WG’s deliberations over this overarching concern should take into account any new information we may get from the GAC, especially since several governments had - during the WIPO-2 Process - expressed reservations over the exact point. Fifthly, on the suggestion for IGOs to provide examples of how different nations have limited IGO immunities, the staff briefing note currently contains a short list of a few such jurisdictions, which indicates a certain similarity of treatment (in principle) across several countries. As such, we thought it might be best for this particular note to focus on those questions to which the WG currently does not have as much necessary information. Please accept my apologies if in this latest draft we have missed or mischaracterized any suggestions, as we as staff wanted to get the revised version out to everyone in good time before the weekend. We look forward to continued discussion on the list regarding this topic. In the meantime, staff will consolidate all the links and additional materials provided by George and Paul, and upload them together with the results of our continuing research to the WG wiki as soon as we can. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org -----Original Message----- From: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at 09:04 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Follow up questions for IGO small group on sovereign immunity
Paul made some excellent suggestions for additional questions.
I would suggest, in the same vein as his section #2, asking the IGOs to elaborate on and quantify the extent of the alleged "cybersquatting" activity. Are we talking about 50 alleged infringing domain names? Are we talking about 50,000 alleged infringing domain names? How are they gathering those statistics, and monitoring the extent of the problem? To what extent is the cybersquatting taking place on gTLDs, as opposed to ccTLDs? Don't the IGOs face identical issues of 'standing' and exposure to 'legal jurisdiction' in ccTLD disputes?
For instance, in the ADR rules of the EU:
http://eu.adr.eu/html/en/adr/adr_rules/eu%20adr%20rules.pdf
paragraph B.1.(b)(14) says (on page 9):
"State that the Complainant will submit, with respect to any challenges to a decision in the ADR Proceeding revoking or transferring the domain name, to the jurisdiction of the courts in at least one specified Mutual Jurisdiction in accordance with Paragraph A1"
For the DRS procedure of .uk domain names, it states in section 3(c)(viii):
http://www.nominet.org.uk/disputes/when-use-drs/policy-and-procedure/drs-p rocedure
"state that the Complainant will submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts with respect to any legal proceedings seeking to reverse the effect of a Decision requiring the suspension, cancellation, transfer or other amendment to a Domain Name registration, and that the Complainant agrees that any such legal proceedings will be governed by English law;"
If we go back to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) UDRPs that I sent to the list yesterday, many of the domain names they won in the complaints were not renewed by BIS, and are currently available for registration. That might indicate that the problem has diminished over time (especially as mechanisms to monetize infringing domain names have decreased over the past 5 years, e.g. pay-per-click domain name parking, affiliate programs, etc.). Perhaps it would also be prudent to ask what other steps the IGOs take, in keeping with their duty to mitigate damages (e.g. do they make complaints to webhosting companies, do they file DMCA complaints for copyright infringement if alleged cybersquatters are also infringing on copyrighted material, do they make complaints to PPC providers like Google, do they make complaints to payment processors like PayPal, VISA, Mastercard, etc.)
Sincerely,
George
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
Mary, please kindly include this in the file for the WG and circulate to the extent this email does not reach all participants.
I agree with George.
The most striking thing about both the research report and the proposed letter was that it used as foundational points, asserted "facts" that were not substantiated. Examples:
1. Those raised by George below.
2. Statements that IGOs have complained about the current set up with Mutual Jurisdiction. I have seen this phrase before but have never seen a listing of those NGOs and INGOs who have raised this issue. Before embarking on anything we should ask for those complaining parties to be identified. THEN we should compare that number and type with the universe of IGOs/NGOs to see if this is approaching a serious issue.
3. Limitation of issues. The issue is not merely jurisdictional immunity but also includes liability immunity. In any action brought by a losing respondent, the respondent (now the plaintiff) has the ability to claim damages, including attorneys' fees and costs.
A. Jurisdictional Immunity. In those US courts having dealt with this issue (including parvi.org (see attached complaint, Default Motion and Final Judgment). The judgment resulted in a 100K for interference and 27K for attorneys' fees and costs. The City of Paris (though not an NGO/INGO has a long history of such behavior.
B. Liability immunity. RECOVERY of any judgment is subject to specific collection rules that vary by jurisdiction. For example, in the US, the FISA governs collection as well and requires an additional level of service of the judgment so that the defendant (now judgment debtor) can assert immunity claims as to itself or any specific assets.
C. Tied to the above, we have no real understanding of how litigious the NGOs/INGOs have been. A search of the US litigation (via PACER) would be very time-consuming but doable by ICANN Staff. This would obviously not answer the issue as to non-US jurisdictions. I thus believe that any letter should request not only the identity of the complaining NGOs/INGOs, but also request that they provide a listing of any and all litigation or other quasi-judicial proceedings they have been involved in. To the extent ICANN staff, the ICANN legal dept. or the GAC is aware (or can find out) the answer should be given as to any other NGO/INGO litigation/quasi-litigation activities as well.
Without the above it is impossible to understand the real nature of the asserted "problem". Unless the problem is indeed prevalent, I would suggest that any change is unwarranted given the potential of disruption and cost of implementation (again remembering that the UDRP is based upon contract and ANY change requires modification of many contracts at many levels (Registry?ICANN, Registry/Registrar and Registrar/Registrant).
4. The entire purpose of the UDRP was premised on the foundational stone that the UDRP was not intended to grant greater rights in the cyber-world than those which existed in the "real" world (Reference WIPO: Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process - copy attached). As a result I see no reason to provide any particular participant in the UDRP with any greater rights or privileges then they would have in the "real" world. In the real world, an NGO/INGO must pursue legal claims of trademark infringement using the judicial process. To do so they must weigh the importance of asserting their "rights" against the risk that such assertive behavior entails.
Thus, the proposed letter IMHO requires substantial revision to include these types of comments so that we are able to obtain a clear picture in the form of any response and not merely a generalized statement of desires that are unsupported by any factual or legal basis.
Regards,
Paul Keating
On 3/17/15 11:57 PM, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com> wrote:
There are more than simply 2 instances of IGOs bringing UDRPs. In particular, I managed to find that the Bank for International Settlements has five (5) other UDRPs that weren't referenced, namely:
(1) bisettlement.com -- http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0571.html
(2) bfisonline.net -- http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0575.html
(3) bisonlinedept.com -- http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0987.html
(4) bankforinternationalsettlement.com - http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0986.html
(5) bfis.net -- http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0984.html
I also found another one that was brought, and then terminated, for "United States Fund for UNICEF", in relation to unicefonline.net/org:
(6) http://www.udrpsearch.com/wipo/d2007-1920
(both domains appear to have been transferred to the US Fund for UNICEF)
Of course, there was also that UNITAID case we've discussed before, brought by the law firm as a proxy:
(7) http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2012-1922
involving unitaid.biz/com/info/net/org.
Also, the United Nations World Food Programme brought a UDRP that was terminated:
(8) http://www.udrpsearch.com/wipo/d2005-0099 http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisionsx/list.jsp?prefix=D&year=200 5& seq_min=1&seq_max=199
regarding wfpafrica.com, wfpasia.com, wfpenvironment.com, wfpnews.com worldfoodprogram.com, worldfoodprogrammes.com
(seems some of those domains are now available!)
Given the increase in the number of discovered cases, one might need to rethink the use of phrases like "limited instances" (first paragraph of page 2), or "rare decisions" (last paragraph of page 2). Given the small number of IGOs in relation to all potential complainants, it might turn out that they've filed a statistically proportionate number of cases, all things considered (which might inform the question as to whether they've actually been deterred from filing cases, as they suggest -- statistics might prove otherwise).
As for the questions on the list, I think Question #5 isn't one where the IGOs can give an authoritative answer -- they're not the individuals being prejudiced. IGOs should should only be asked questions that are within their knowledge. Similarly #6 isn't something they would be able to answer -- it's really something for us to answer (like #5).
One might expand on #4, in particular ask directly about IGOs initiating their own actions in national courts, whether they *ever* do that themselves -- we already know of at least 2 cases, as discussed previously:
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2015-March/000302.html
They should give us more examples where they've brought cases (e.g. in other countries). I would be amazed if those were the only 2 cases ever brought (indeed, I'd be skeptical if they couldn't produce others). Why should IGOs be treated differently, if they've brought cases themselves before the courts?
One might also ask in relation to Paul Keating's idea that if the nature of the mutual jurisdiction (waiver of immunity) was expressly made limited, i.e. circumscribed to apply *only* to the domain name under dispute for IGOs, and nothing else (i.e. not to attack the assets of the IGOs), whether that accommodates the concerns of the IGOs.
For footnote #5, one might want to directly reference the UNITAID case, in case the IGOs aren't aware of that technique.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear WG members,
Please find attached a draft note addressed to the IGO small group that was prepared by the WG co-chairs and staff, based on recent WG discussions and research done to date on the sovereign immunity issue. The co-chairs propose that following review and approval from the WG, they send these questions along with a cover note to the IGO small group, in the hope that the IGO representatives will continue to be responsive and helpful to ICANN¹s efforts to work through the matter. The cover note will include the WG¹s thanks to the IGO small group for its January response, along with an update on the WG¹s current thinking on the ³standing² issue and Article 6ter of the Paris Convention.
Please reply to the list via email with any comments you or your groups may have on the document as soon as you can. For your information, you will see from the draft that we have added another UDRP decision to the World Bank example that George provided earlier in our deliberations this second case concerns the Bank for International Settlements, which also is on the GAC list of IGOs dating from 2013. I attach also an updated version of the staff Briefing Note on sovereign immunity and IGOs that was circulated last week this update adds a reference to the Canadian statute that the Canadian Supreme Court relies on in the NAFO case which George brought to the WG¹s attention last week.
Finally, please note that the GNSO Council has been updated on the WG¹s progress during our recent face-to-face facilitated meeting in Singapore, and will take up at its meeting on Thursday the specific question of whether they agree with the WG¹s thinking that the list of IGOs in the WIPO database who requested Article 6ter protection should be the list upon which the WG¹s recommendations (if any) will be based, especially for ³standing² and in principled preference to the original GAC list, which contains IGOs selected based on fulfillment of the .int eligibility criteria and which was the list that our WG was chartered to discuss. We will provide the WG with a further update following the Council¹s deliberations on this point later this week.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 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
Hi folks, I checked a few other ccTLDs, to see how they handle exposure to courts for complainants: 1. .us (USA) -- http://www.neustar.us/ustld-dispute-resolution-policy/ Complainant must submit to a mutual jurisdiction (see section 3.c.xii). 2. .de (Germany) -- www.denic.de/en/faq-single/450/1/248.html Does not have *any* dispute resolution procedure, so complainants must go through the courts. 3. .ca (Canada) -- http://cira.ca/assets/Documents/Legal/Dispute/CDRPrules.pdf Appendix A, Paragraph 5 (page 17) says complaints must submit to a court jurisdiction. 4. .ru (Russia) -- http://cctld.ru/en/domains/domens_ru/registration.php Like Germany for .de, there is no domain name dispute resolution procedure for the .ru ccTLD, so complainants must go through the courts. These examples demonstrate that IGOs are not treated in a special manner in these countries (or in the case of .eu, an entire continent), when it comes to submission to a court's jurisdiction. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:04 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Don't the IGOs face identical issues of 'standing' and exposure to 'legal jurisdiction' in ccTLD disputes?
For instance, in the ADR rules of the EU:
http://eu.adr.eu/html/en/adr/adr_rules/eu%20adr%20rules.pdf
paragraph B.1.(b)(14) says (on page 9):
"State that the Complainant will submit, with respect to any challenges to a decision in the ADR Proceeding revoking or transferring the domain name, to the jurisdiction of the courts in at least one specified Mutual Jurisdiction in accordance with Paragraph A1"
For the DRS procedure of .uk domain names, it states in section 3(c)(viii):
http://www.nominet.org.uk/disputes/when-use-drs/policy-and-procedure/drs-pro...
"state that the Complainant will submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts with respect to any legal proceedings seeking to reverse the effect of a Decision requiring the suspension, cancellation, transfer or other amendment to a Domain Name registration, and that the Complainant agrees that any such legal proceedings will be governed by English law;"
participants (3)
-
George Kirikos -
Mary Wong -
Paul Keating