New subject: FW: Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June

June 12, 2015

      Jim,

Excellent edits.  I agree with them entirely with the exception of the
following comments.

Your Comment 1. I think is important guidance that making it clear that
litigation is an available option at any time and that panelists are not
required to stay or dismiss a UDRP/URS in favor of litigation.  As an aside,
while I have not seen such treatment following a UDRP, I do note that in the
DRS realm, post DRS litigation is prohibited by the decision in the Emirates
case.

Your Comment 2.  I think it may be important to the expert that IGOs
affirmatively seek trademark-like protection under the Convention.  In fact
we may also point out they are of course free to formally register marks
under national laws AND that they may also assert common law t trademark
rights in the context of a UDRP.
Thus, perhaps we co ild add something such as the following:

"IGOs also remain free to pursue traditional trademark registration under
national registration systems.  In the UDRP context, a complainant may rely
upon either a registered trademark or common law trademark rights.

Your Comment 3.  Excellent point.  I think the question duplicates the 1st
and should be deleted.  Our only concern is the UDRP/URS context.  Whether
or not immunity is waived by merely asserting trademark rights in a
(non-UDRP/URS) demand is not relevant to our work.

Regards,

Paul

From:  "Bikoff, James" <jbikoff@sgrlaw.com>
Date:  Thursday, June 11, 2015 11:48 PM
To:  "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>
Subject:  [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: Agenda and documents for next WG call on
Wednesday 10 June
...
Hello all,
Attached are our suggestions. As it appears that most, if not all, of us agree
with comments made by Paul, we’ve based our comments on his version.
Regards,
Jim
From:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org
[mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Poncelet Ileleji
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:28 AM
To: Jay Chapman
Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda and documents for next WG call on
Wednesday 10 June
Same here I concur with George
Kind Regards
Poncelet.
On 11 June 2015 at 14:25, Jay Chapman <jay@digimedia.com> wrote:
I agree with George as well.
Jay
On Jun 10, 2015 8:35 AM, "Paul Keating" <Paul@law.es> wrote:
I agree with George on these which is why my suggested revisions removed
these proposed questions.
PRK
On 6/10/15 2:09 PM, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com> wrote:
...
...
For point/question #3, in particular:
"What if the Mutual Jurisdiction requirement specified that, to apply
to IGOs, it has to be a jurisdiction of one of its member states?"
I don't see how this could ever be acceptable to registrants. For
example, for a North American registrant using a North American
registrar, an IGO consisting of member states from Iran, Iraq, Syria
and Turkey might place the "mutual jurisdiction" in one of those 4
countries that have absolutely nothing to do with the registrant,
rather than in North America.
The same would apply to the rest of point #3, i.e. allowing the IGO to
"forum shop" by selecting a jurisdiction of a member state. For a
court to even have jurisdiction over a registrant, there must be some
connection to the underlying dispute and parties. That has normally
been (a) location of registrant, (b) location of registrar, or (c)
location of registry operator.
I know these are just 'exploratory' questions, but I don't see why any
legitimacy should be attached to ad hoc proposals like the above by
submitting them to 'experts' in the first place. This should be about
fact-finding, not an informal 'negotiation' with IGOs.
Conclusions/solutions should flow from the facts. Putting out possible
'solutions' first, and then trying to come up with some 'rationale' to
justify them later is the wrong way to do things, in my opinion.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269 <tel:416-588-0269>
http://www.leap.com/
...
...
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
...
...
Dear WG members,
The proposed agenda for our next meeting, scheduled for Wednesday 10
June,
is as follows:
Roll call/updates to SOI
Discuss and finalize questions for independent legal expert (see
attached
for draft document from the WG co-chairs)
Planning for WG meeting in Buenos Aires/next steps
It may be that we will not need the full hour; however, Petter and Phil
would like the group to have this call prior to the open meeting we are
scheduled to have in Buenos Aires, on Wednesday 24 June at 10.00 a.m.
ART
(local time). For those WG members who will not be present in Buenos
Aires,
the usual remote participation facilities will be available, and we¹ll
send
call-in and other details prior to the date.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889 <tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889>
Email: mary.wong@icann.org
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
_______________________________________________
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
--
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd
www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>
www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>
www.aficta.org <http://www.aficta.org>
www.itag.gm <http://www.itag.gm>
www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org>
James L. Bikoff <http://www.sgrlaw.com/attorneys/profiles/bikoff-james/>  |
Attorney at Law
202-263-4341 phone
202-263-4329 fax
www.sgrlaw.com <http://www.sgrlaw.com>
jbikoff@sgrlaw.com <mailto:jbikoff@sgrlaw.com>
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20007
<http://www.sgrlaw.com>  Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP
Confidentiality Notice
This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended
exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This
communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or
confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the
named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or
disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message
in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies
of the message.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June

Paul Keating

Phil Corwin

Paul Keating

Rudi Vansnick (NPOC)

tags

participants (3)