Interestingly, the World Bank maintains a webpage at: http://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/ppp-overview/practical-t... where it explicitly discusses waiver of immunity, with some *suggested* language: "(1) To the extent that the [awarding authority] may be entitled in any state or jurisdiction to claim or benefit from any immunity (whether characterized as state immunity, sovereign immunity, act of state or otherwise) now or hereafter for itself or any of its property or assets (which it now has or may hereafter acquire) in respect of its obligations under this Agreement from service of process or other documents relating to proceedings, jurisdiction, suit, judgment, execution, attachment (whether before awarded or judgment, in aid or execution or otherwise) or legal process or to the extent that in any such jurisdiction there may be attributed to it or any of its property or assets such immunity (whether or not claimed), the [awarding authority] expressly, unconditionally and irrevocably agrees not to claim, invoke or permit to be invoked on it or its property or assets’ behalf or for it or its property or assets’ benefit and hereby expressly, unconditionally and irrevocably waives such immunity to the fullest extent permitted by the laws of such jurisdiction. (2) Subject to any applicable appellate rights, the [awarding authority] consents generally in respect of any proceedings to the giving of any relief or the issue of any process in connection with the proceedings including, without limitation, the making enforcement or execution against any property or assets whatsoever (irrespective of its use or intended use) of any order or judgment which may be made or given in the proceedings; and (3) The [awarding authority] irrevocably and unconditionally acknowledges that the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement constitute private and commercial (and not public) acts of the [awarding authority]." That's the kind of language that can be incorporated into a future UDRP document (once that other PDP begins, where the UDRP undergoes reforms). Thanks World Bank! :-) The above is obvious an *explicit* waiver of immunity (like the UDRP has). However, there's also a concept (that this PDP hasn't discussed in depth before, I believe, but only in passing), of *implicit* waiver of immunity. There was a recent Canadian ruling in Ontario's courts that the World Bank had waived its immunity *implicitly* through its actions, requiring it to produce files in a criminal trial: https://bccla.org/our_work/world-bank-group-v-kevin-wallace-et-al/ "Justice Nordheimer of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice found that the World Bank had implicitly waived its immunity through this conduct." That matter has been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada (no decision yet): http://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=36315 The factum of the BCCLA in the Supreme Court appeal by the World Bank can be seen at: https://bccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/20151105-Factum-World-Bank-Grou... where it argues that the OECD Convention and ICCPR both support the recognition of "implied waiver". Of course, Argentina just settled a dispute with its international bond holders, http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35690833 where the NYC courts were explicitly given jurisdiction when Argentina raised money long ago. Domain name disputes, of course, are somewhat different in that IGOs have no contracts with domain name registrants (contracts are between registrars and registrants), but seek to intervene and disrupt those contracts as non-parties. I believe when IGOs actively intervene in this manner, they *implicitly* waive any immunity, regardless of whether the UDRP contains the explicit waiver of immunity via the language that currently exists. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/