Response from international law expert
Dear WG members, We have received a response from Mr. Hans Corell, the international law expert to whom we had sent the list of questions on sovereign immunity, prepared in consultation with our WG co-chairs Petter and Phil. Mr. Corell is a former Swedish diplomat and was from 1994-2004 the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and Legal Counsel for the United Nations. He is presently an adviser to a number of international bodies, including ICANN and the International Bar Association, where he is the current Co-Chair of the Council of the Human Rights Institute. I attach a copy of his full CV to this email, but you can also see his professional biography and current appointments here: http://www.havc.se/PresentEngagements.htm and http://www.havc.se/res/SelectedMaterial/20140721shortbio.pdf. In order to try to gain an initial understanding of the scope of the international legal principle of sovereign immunity as it applies to IGOs, we provided Mr. Corell with some basic background information into our work and the reason for asking the specific questions we enclosed. We did not, however, go into detail about the progress and workings of the WG, including our interaction with the IGOs so you will see from his response that some of his comments are based on general rather than more specific information. You will see also that he has certain questions for the WG, which may be helpful avenues for follow up. As such, staff thought that the WG may wish to discuss both Mr. Corell¹s answers to the questions that were posed to him as well as possible follow-up action on the WG call this Wednesday. For instance, we could develop a subsequent set of questions that we can provide along with a note summarizing the IGOs¹ position on the matter, so that he can provide us with more detailed input. Please note that Petter and Phil have not yet had a chance to review Mr. Corell¹s response. Do note also that representatives of the UN legal counsel were participants in the original IGO-INGO PDP WG that preceded our work, and I believe may also be represented in the IGO ³small group² that sent us their January 205 response. As such, a further point for WG discussion may be how we follow up with the IGO ³small group² after having reviewed their and Mr. Corell¹s response. For completeness I attach also a copy of the initial note and questions that were sent to Mr. Corell. 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
With respect, I believe his statement in relation to Section 29 is somewhat misleading. The language of Section 29 explicitly states that it applies to disputes arising out of CONTRACTS TO WHICH THE UNITED NATIONS IS A PARTY. The United Nations is not a party to the domain name registration agreement for domain names that they deem to be infringing their rights (the only parties are the registrar and the registrant). I think the answer to question #1 is also incomplete, since it seems to be predicated on that existing contractual relationship, where an arbitration agreement already exists. It does not consider the broader classes of disputes, e.g. where someone in Toronto launches a cafe named "UNESCO" -- the UN agency named UNESCO (obviously??) can't compel that cafe owner to participate in an arbitration. A specific answer to that scenario should be provided, and more broadly, how they enforce their alleged rights in the offline world in cooperation with law enforcement, etc. Also, it seems he's unaware that the standard domain name registration agreement that IGOs (including the UN, for un.org) have entered into specify jurisdictions for 3rd party disputes, including acceptance of the UDRP! (i.e. a 3rd party owning a TM for "UN" could file a (frivolous) UDRP against the United Nations, and the United Nations would be compelled to defend it). Other than broad references and a few anecdotes, the 'answers' lack real rigour (e.g. no references to case law, precedents, etc.). Furthermore, they lack independence -- it's clear he's an advocate for the UN's positions, not an independent 3rd party with relevant experience and research in the area we are discussing. Personally, the 'answers' appear helpful only to the extent that they demonstrate that greater education/awareness is required. They certainly don't meet any threshold for justifying changes to the status quo. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear WG members,
We have received a response from Mr. Hans Corell, the international law expert to whom we had sent the list of questions on sovereign immunity, prepared in consultation with our WG co-chairs Petter and Phil. Mr. Corell is a former Swedish diplomat and was from 1994-2004 the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and Legal Counsel for the United Nations. He is presently an adviser to a number of international bodies, including ICANN and the International Bar Association, where he is the current Co-Chair of the Council of the Human Rights Institute. I attach a copy of his full CV to this email, but you can also see his professional biography and current appointments here: http://www.havc.se/PresentEngagements.htm and http://www.havc.se/res/SelectedMaterial/20140721shortbio.pdf.
In order to try to gain an initial understanding of the scope of the international legal principle of sovereign immunity as it applies to IGOs, we provided Mr. Corell with some basic background information into our work and the reason for asking the specific questions we enclosed. We did not, however, go into detail about the progress and workings of the WG, including our interaction with the IGOs – so you will see from his response that some of his comments are based on general rather than more specific information. You will see also that he has certain questions for the WG, which may be helpful avenues for follow up.
As such, staff thought that the WG may wish to discuss both Mr. Corell’s answers to the questions that were posed to him as well as possible follow-up action on the WG call this Wednesday. For instance, we could develop a subsequent set of questions that we can provide along with a note summarizing the IGOs’ position on the matter, so that he can provide us with more detailed input.
Please note that Petter and Phil have not yet had a chance to review Mr. Corell’s response. Do note also that representatives of the UN legal counsel were participants in the original IGO-INGO PDP WG that preceded our work, and I believe may also be represented in the IGO “small group” that sent us their January 205 response. As such, a further point for WG discussion may be how we follow up with the IGO “small group” after having reviewed their and Mr. Corell’s response.
For completeness I attach also a copy of the initial note and questions that were sent to Mr. Corell.
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
Having read the report I wholeheartedly agree with George. The respondent had not practiced for over a decade and his comments were based upon a very limited number of inapplicable scenarios and with no reference to legal authority or judicial opinion. He had no background knowledge of the UDRP. I have been absent from a the past several meetings but wonder why this person was asked instead of the many other more qualified attorneys. It certainly can't be for lack of available funds. If we are to seek legal advice we should seek it from more traditional sources and be prepared to pay for the service. If funds are needed we should seek them from ICANN. Sincerely, Paul Keating, Esq.
On 11 Mar 2015, at 16:35, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
With respect, I believe his statement in relation to Section 29 is somewhat misleading. The language of Section 29 explicitly states that it applies to disputes arising out of CONTRACTS TO WHICH THE UNITED NATIONS IS A PARTY. The United Nations is not a party to the domain name registration agreement for domain names that they deem to be infringing their rights (the only parties are the registrar and the registrant).
I think the answer to question #1 is also incomplete, since it seems to be predicated on that existing contractual relationship, where an arbitration agreement already exists. It does not consider the broader classes of disputes, e.g. where someone in Toronto launches a cafe named "UNESCO" -- the UN agency named UNESCO (obviously??) can't compel that cafe owner to participate in an arbitration. A specific answer to that scenario should be provided, and more broadly, how they enforce their alleged rights in the offline world in cooperation with law enforcement, etc.
Also, it seems he's unaware that the standard domain name registration agreement that IGOs (including the UN, for un.org) have entered into specify jurisdictions for 3rd party disputes, including acceptance of the UDRP! (i.e. a 3rd party owning a TM for "UN" could file a (frivolous) UDRP against the United Nations, and the United Nations would be compelled to defend it).
Other than broad references and a few anecdotes, the 'answers' lack real rigour (e.g. no references to case law, precedents, etc.). Furthermore, they lack independence -- it's clear he's an advocate for the UN's positions, not an independent 3rd party with relevant experience and research in the area we are discussing.
Personally, the 'answers' appear helpful only to the extent that they demonstrate that greater education/awareness is required. They certainly don't meet any threshold for justifying changes to the status quo.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote: Dear WG members,
We have received a response from Mr. Hans Corell, the international law expert to whom we had sent the list of questions on sovereign immunity, prepared in consultation with our WG co-chairs Petter and Phil. Mr. Corell is a former Swedish diplomat and was from 1994-2004 the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and Legal Counsel for the United Nations. He is presently an adviser to a number of international bodies, including ICANN and the International Bar Association, where he is the current Co-Chair of the Council of the Human Rights Institute. I attach a copy of his full CV to this email, but you can also see his professional biography and current appointments here: http://www.havc.se/PresentEngagements.htm and http://www.havc.se/res/SelectedMaterial/20140721shortbio.pdf.
In order to try to gain an initial understanding of the scope of the international legal principle of sovereign immunity as it applies to IGOs, we provided Mr. Corell with some basic background information into our work and the reason for asking the specific questions we enclosed. We did not, however, go into detail about the progress and workings of the WG, including our interaction with the IGOs – so you will see from his response that some of his comments are based on general rather than more specific information. You will see also that he has certain questions for the WG, which may be helpful avenues for follow up.
As such, staff thought that the WG may wish to discuss both Mr. Corell’s answers to the questions that were posed to him as well as possible follow-up action on the WG call this Wednesday. For instance, we could develop a subsequent set of questions that we can provide along with a note summarizing the IGOs’ position on the matter, so that he can provide us with more detailed input.
Please note that Petter and Phil have not yet had a chance to review Mr. Corell’s response. Do note also that representatives of the UN legal counsel were participants in the original IGO-INGO PDP WG that preceded our work, and I believe may also be represented in the IGO “small group” that sent us their January 205 response. As such, a further point for WG discussion may be how we follow up with the IGO “small group” after having reviewed their and Mr. Corell’s response.
For completeness I attach also a copy of the initial note and questions that were sent to Mr. Corell.
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
I just sent an email to the group with a relatively recent Supreme Court of Canada 9-0 decision that stands in sharp contrast to the 'international law expert' and his answers. The subject of the post was "The Scope of IGO 'immunity' and it references the decision at: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2013/2013scc66/2013scc66.html The 'international law expert' referenced, in contrast, zero court decisions or authorities to support his answers and analysis. His analysis should be weighed against actual experience in the courts. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Paul Keating <paul@law.es> wrote:
Having read the report I wholeheartedly agree with George.
The respondent had not practiced for over a decade and his comments were based upon a very limited number of inapplicable scenarios and with no reference to legal authority or judicial opinion. He had no background knowledge of the UDRP.
I have been absent from a the past several meetings but wonder why this person was asked instead of the many other more qualified attorneys. It certainly can't be for lack of available funds. If we are to seek legal advice we should seek it from more traditional sources and be prepared to pay for the service. If funds are needed we should seek them from ICANN.
Sincerely, Paul Keating, Esq.
On 11 Mar 2015, at 16:35, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
With respect, I believe his statement in relation to Section 29 is somewhat misleading. The language of Section 29 explicitly states that it applies to disputes arising out of CONTRACTS TO WHICH THE UNITED NATIONS IS A PARTY. The United Nations is not a party to the domain name registration agreement for domain names that they deem to be infringing their rights (the only parties are the registrar and the registrant).
I think the answer to question #1 is also incomplete, since it seems to be predicated on that existing contractual relationship, where an arbitration agreement already exists. It does not consider the broader classes of disputes, e.g. where someone in Toronto launches a cafe named "UNESCO" -- the UN agency named UNESCO (obviously??) can't compel that cafe owner to participate in an arbitration. A specific answer to that scenario should be provided, and more broadly, how they enforce their alleged rights in the offline world in cooperation with law enforcement, etc.
Also, it seems he's unaware that the standard domain name registration agreement that IGOs (including the UN, for un.org) have entered into specify jurisdictions for 3rd party disputes, including acceptance of the UDRP! (i.e. a 3rd party owning a TM for "UN" could file a (frivolous) UDRP against the United Nations, and the United Nations would be compelled to defend it).
Other than broad references and a few anecdotes, the 'answers' lack real rigour (e.g. no references to case law, precedents, etc.). Furthermore, they lack independence -- it's clear he's an advocate for the UN's positions, not an independent 3rd party with relevant experience and research in the area we are discussing.
Personally, the 'answers' appear helpful only to the extent that they demonstrate that greater education/awareness is required. They certainly don't meet any threshold for justifying changes to the status quo.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote: Dear WG members,
We have received a response from Mr. Hans Corell, the international law expert to whom we had sent the list of questions on sovereign immunity, prepared in consultation with our WG co-chairs Petter and Phil. Mr. Corell is a former Swedish diplomat and was from 1994-2004 the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and Legal Counsel for the United Nations. He is presently an adviser to a number of international bodies, including ICANN and the International Bar Association, where he is the current Co-Chair of the Council of the Human Rights Institute. I attach a copy of his full CV to this email, but you can also see his professional biography and current appointments here: http://www.havc.se/PresentEngagements.htm and http://www.havc.se/res/SelectedMaterial/20140721shortbio.pdf.
In order to try to gain an initial understanding of the scope of the international legal principle of sovereign immunity as it applies to IGOs, we provided Mr. Corell with some basic background information into our work and the reason for asking the specific questions we enclosed. We did not, however, go into detail about the progress and workings of the WG, including our interaction with the IGOs – so you will see from his response that some of his comments are based on general rather than more specific information. You will see also that he has certain questions for the WG, which may be helpful avenues for follow up.
As such, staff thought that the WG may wish to discuss both Mr. Corell’s answers to the questions that were posed to him as well as possible follow-up action on the WG call this Wednesday. For instance, we could develop a subsequent set of questions that we can provide along with a note summarizing the IGOs’ position on the matter, so that he can provide us with more detailed input.
Please note that Petter and Phil have not yet had a chance to review Mr. Corell’s response. Do note also that representatives of the UN legal counsel were participants in the original IGO-INGO PDP WG that preceded our work, and I believe may also be represented in the IGO “small group” that sent us their January 205 response. As such, a further point for WG discussion may be how we follow up with the IGO “small group” after having reviewed their and Mr. Corell’s response.
For completeness I attach also a copy of the initial note and questions that were sent to Mr. Corell.
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
Or perhaps from academic experts who often enjoy sharing their time and pontificating -- especially when their expertise can help shape better policy. Best, Kathy On 3/11/2015 12:41 PM, Paul Keating wrote:
Having read the report I wholeheartedly agree with George.
The respondent had not practiced for over a decade and his comments were based upon a very limited number of inapplicable scenarios and with no reference to legal authority or judicial opinion. He had no background knowledge of the UDRP.
I have been absent from a the past several meetings but wonder why this person was asked instead of the many other more qualified attorneys. It certainly can't be for lack of available funds. If we are to seek legal advice we should seek it from more traditional sources and be prepared to pay for the service. If funds are needed we should seek them from ICANN.
Sincerely, Paul Keating, Esq.
On 11 Mar 2015, at 16:35, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
With respect, I believe his statement in relation to Section 29 is somewhat misleading. The language of Section 29 explicitly states that it applies to disputes arising out of CONTRACTS TO WHICH THE UNITED NATIONS IS A PARTY. The United Nations is not a party to the domain name registration agreement for domain names that they deem to be infringing their rights (the only parties are the registrar and the registrant).
I think the answer to question #1 is also incomplete, since it seems to be predicated on that existing contractual relationship, where an arbitration agreement already exists. It does not consider the broader classes of disputes, e.g. where someone in Toronto launches a cafe named "UNESCO" -- the UN agency named UNESCO (obviously??) can't compel that cafe owner to participate in an arbitration. A specific answer to that scenario should be provided, and more broadly, how they enforce their alleged rights in the offline world in cooperation with law enforcement, etc.
Also, it seems he's unaware that the standard domain name registration agreement that IGOs (including the UN, for un.org) have entered into specify jurisdictions for 3rd party disputes, including acceptance of the UDRP! (i.e. a 3rd party owning a TM for "UN" could file a (frivolous) UDRP against the United Nations, and the United Nations would be compelled to defend it).
Other than broad references and a few anecdotes, the 'answers' lack real rigour (e.g. no references to case law, precedents, etc.). Furthermore, they lack independence -- it's clear he's an advocate for the UN's positions, not an independent 3rd party with relevant experience and research in the area we are discussing.
Personally, the 'answers' appear helpful only to the extent that they demonstrate that greater education/awareness is required. They certainly don't meet any threshold for justifying changes to the status quo.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote: Dear WG members,
We have received a response from Mr. Hans Corell, the international law expert to whom we had sent the list of questions on sovereign immunity, prepared in consultation with our WG co-chairs Petter and Phil. Mr. Corell is a former Swedish diplomat and was from 1994-2004 the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and Legal Counsel for the United Nations. He is presently an adviser to a number of international bodies, including ICANN and the International Bar Association, where he is the current Co-Chair of the Council of the Human Rights Institute. I attach a copy of his full CV to this email, but you can also see his professional biography and current appointments here: http://www.havc.se/PresentEngagements.htm and http://www.havc.se/res/SelectedMaterial/20140721shortbio.pdf.
In order to try to gain an initial understanding of the scope of the international legal principle of sovereign immunity as it applies to IGOs, we provided Mr. Corell with some basic background information into our work and the reason for asking the specific questions we enclosed. We did not, however, go into detail about the progress and workings of the WG, including our interaction with the IGOs – so you will see from his response that some of his comments are based on general rather than more specific information. You will see also that he has certain questions for the WG, which may be helpful avenues for follow up.
As such, staff thought that the WG may wish to discuss both Mr. Corell’s answers to the questions that were posed to him as well as possible follow-up action on the WG call this Wednesday. For instance, we could develop a subsequent set of questions that we can provide along with a note summarizing the IGOs’ position on the matter, so that he can provide us with more detailed input.
Please note that Petter and Phil have not yet had a chance to review Mr. Corell’s response. Do note also that representatives of the UN legal counsel were participants in the original IGO-INGO PDP WG that preceded our work, and I believe may also be represented in the IGO “small group” that sent us their January 205 response. As such, a further point for WG discussion may be how we follow up with the IGO “small group” after having reviewed their and Mr. Corell’s response.
For completeness I attach also a copy of the initial note and questions that were sent to Mr. Corell.
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
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
Hello everyone, Thanks for the continuing input and prompt responses. In order to facilitate the WG¹s decision as to whether or not to engage another legal expert(s), in addition to formulating follow up questions for the IGO small group and possibly the GAC, staff thought it might be helpful to send around a very brief summary of our preliminary research into the IGO sovereign immunity issue. Please note that the summary does not delve into the many cases where different national courts have considered the question of IGO immunity, as these concern a variety of different situations ranging from criminal liability issues and immunity for individual IO officials to immunity from property seizure and enforcement issues. Some also involve interpretation of certain aspects of a national law, a few of which we have listed in the summary. Please note also that this is not a legal or expert opinion, but simply a summary of initial research that policy staff were able to do. We hope this is of some assistance. 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: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 12:58 To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Response from international law expert
Or perhaps from academic experts who often enjoy sharing their time and pontificating -- especially when their expertise can help shape better policy. Best, Kathy
On 3/11/2015 12:41 PM, Paul Keating wrote:
Having read the report I wholeheartedly agree with George.
The respondent had not practiced for over a decade and his comments were based upon a very limited number of inapplicable scenarios and with no reference to legal authority or judicial opinion. He had no background knowledge of the UDRP.
I have been absent from a the past several meetings but wonder why this person was asked instead of the many other more qualified attorneys. It certainly can't be for lack of available funds. If we are to seek legal advice we should seek it from more traditional sources and be prepared to pay for the service. If funds are needed we should seek them from ICANN.
Sincerely, Paul Keating, Esq.
On 11 Mar 2015, at 16:35, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
With respect, I believe his statement in relation to Section 29 is somewhat misleading. The language of Section 29 explicitly states that it applies to disputes arising out of CONTRACTS TO WHICH THE UNITED NATIONS IS A PARTY. The United Nations is not a party to the domain name registration agreement for domain names that they deem to be infringing their rights (the only parties are the registrar and the registrant).
I think the answer to question #1 is also incomplete, since it seems to be predicated on that existing contractual relationship, where an arbitration agreement already exists. It does not consider the broader classes of disputes, e.g. where someone in Toronto launches a cafe named "UNESCO" -- the UN agency named UNESCO (obviously??) can't compel that cafe owner to participate in an arbitration. A specific answer to that scenario should be provided, and more broadly, how they enforce their alleged rights in the offline world in cooperation with law enforcement, etc.
Also, it seems he's unaware that the standard domain name registration agreement that IGOs (including the UN, for un.org) have entered into specify jurisdictions for 3rd party disputes, including acceptance of the UDRP! (i.e. a 3rd party owning a TM for "UN" could file a (frivolous) UDRP against the United Nations, and the United Nations would be compelled to defend it).
Other than broad references and a few anecdotes, the 'answers' lack real rigour (e.g. no references to case law, precedents, etc.). Furthermore, they lack independence -- it's clear he's an advocate for the UN's positions, not an independent 3rd party with relevant experience and research in the area we are discussing.
Personally, the 'answers' appear helpful only to the extent that they demonstrate that greater education/awareness is required. They certainly don't meet any threshold for justifying changes to the status quo.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote: Dear WG members,
We have received a response from Mr. Hans Corell, the international law expert to whom we had sent the list of questions on sovereign immunity, prepared in consultation with our WG co-chairs Petter and Phil. Mr. Corell is a former Swedish diplomat and was from 1994-2004 the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and Legal Counsel for the United Nations. He is presently an adviser to a number of international bodies, including ICANN and the International Bar Association, where he is the current Co-Chair of the Council of the Human Rights Institute. I attach a copy of his full CV to this email, but you can also see his professional biography and current appointments here: http://www.havc.se/PresentEngagements.htm and http://www.havc.se/res/SelectedMaterial/20140721shortbio.pdf.
In order to try to gain an initial understanding of the scope of the international legal principle of sovereign immunity as it applies to IGOs, we provided Mr. Corell with some basic background information into our work and the reason for asking the specific questions we enclosed. We did not, however, go into detail about the progress and workings of the WG, including our interaction with the IGOs so you will see from his response that some of his comments are based on general rather than more specific information. You will see also that he has certain questions for the WG, which may be helpful avenues for follow up.
As such, staff thought that the WG may wish to discuss both Mr. Corell¹s answers to the questions that were posed to him as well as possible follow-up action on the WG call this Wednesday. For instance, we could develop a subsequent set of questions that we can provide along with a note summarizing the IGOs¹ position on the matter, so that he can provide us with more detailed input.
Please note that Petter and Phil have not yet had a chance to review Mr. Corell¹s response. Do note also that representatives of the UN legal counsel were participants in the original IGO-INGO PDP WG that preceded our work, and I believe may also be represented in the IGO ³small group² that sent us their January 205 response. As such, a further point for WG discussion may be how we follow up with the IGO ³small group² after having reviewed their and Mr. Corell¹s response.
For completeness I attach also a copy of the initial note and questions that were sent to Mr. Corell.
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
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
I also thought his qualifications and analysis were substantially lacking. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Paul Keating <paul@law.es> wrote:
Having read the report I wholeheartedly agree with George.
The respondent had not practiced for over a decade and his comments were based upon a very limited number of inapplicable scenarios and with no reference to legal authority or judicial opinion. He had no background knowledge of the UDRP.
I have been absent from a the past several meetings but wonder why this person was asked instead of the many other more qualified attorneys. It certainly can't be for lack of available funds. If we are to seek legal advice we should seek it from more traditional sources and be prepared to pay for the service. If funds are needed we should seek them from ICANN.
Sincerely, Paul Keating, Esq.
On 11 Mar 2015, at 16:35, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
With respect, I believe his statement in relation to Section 29 is somewhat misleading. The language of Section 29 explicitly states that it applies to disputes arising out of CONTRACTS TO WHICH THE UNITED NATIONS IS A PARTY. The United Nations is not a party to the domain name registration agreement for domain names that they deem to be infringing their rights (the only parties are the registrar and the registrant).
I think the answer to question #1 is also incomplete, since it seems to be predicated on that existing contractual relationship, where an arbitration agreement already exists. It does not consider the broader classes of disputes, e.g. where someone in Toronto launches a cafe named "UNESCO" -- the UN agency named UNESCO (obviously??) can't compel that cafe owner to participate in an arbitration. A specific answer to that scenario should be provided, and more broadly, how they enforce their alleged rights in the offline world in cooperation with law enforcement, etc.
Also, it seems he's unaware that the standard domain name registration agreement that IGOs (including the UN, for un.org) have entered into specify jurisdictions for 3rd party disputes, including acceptance of the UDRP! (i.e. a 3rd party owning a TM for "UN" could file a (frivolous) UDRP against the United Nations, and the United Nations would be compelled to defend it).
Other than broad references and a few anecdotes, the 'answers' lack real rigour (e.g. no references to case law, precedents, etc.). Furthermore, they lack independence -- it's clear he's an advocate for the UN's positions, not an independent 3rd party with relevant experience and research in the area we are discussing.
Personally, the 'answers' appear helpful only to the extent that they demonstrate that greater education/awareness is required. They certainly don't meet any threshold for justifying changes to the status quo.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote: Dear WG members,
We have received a response from Mr. Hans Corell, the international law expert to whom we had sent the list of questions on sovereign immunity, prepared in consultation with our WG co-chairs Petter and Phil. Mr. Corell is a former Swedish diplomat and was from 1994-2004 the Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and Legal Counsel for the United Nations. He is presently an adviser to a number of international bodies, including ICANN and the International Bar Association, where he is the current Co-Chair of the Council of the Human Rights Institute. I attach a copy of his full CV to this email, but you can also see his professional biography and current appointments here: http://www.havc.se/PresentEngagements.htm and http://www.havc.se/res/SelectedMaterial/20140721shortbio.pdf.
In order to try to gain an initial understanding of the scope of the international legal principle of sovereign immunity as it applies to IGOs, we provided Mr. Corell with some basic background information into our work and the reason for asking the specific questions we enclosed. We did not, however, go into detail about the progress and workings of the WG, including our interaction with the IGOs – so you will see from his response that some of his comments are based on general rather than more specific information. You will see also that he has certain questions for the WG, which may be helpful avenues for follow up.
As such, staff thought that the WG may wish to discuss both Mr. Corell’s answers to the questions that were posed to him as well as possible follow-up action on the WG call this Wednesday. For instance, we could develop a subsequent set of questions that we can provide along with a note summarizing the IGOs’ position on the matter, so that he can provide us with more detailed input.
Please note that Petter and Phil have not yet had a chance to review Mr. Corell’s response. Do note also that representatives of the UN legal counsel were participants in the original IGO-INGO PDP WG that preceded our work, and I believe may also be represented in the IGO “small group” that sent us their January 205 response. As such, a further point for WG discussion may be how we follow up with the IGO “small group” after having reviewed their and Mr. Corell’s response.
For completeness I attach also a copy of the initial note and questions that were sent to Mr. Corell.
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
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
participants (5)
-
George Kirikos -
Kathy Kleiman -
Mary Wong -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Paul Keating