Paul and George, Points well taken. Also, we support the additional language proposed by Paul. Begin forwarded message: From: Paul Keating <Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>> Date: June 12, 2015 at 8:24:59 AM EDT To: "Bikoff, James" <jbikoff@sgrlaw.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgrlaw.com>>, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June 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<mailto:jbikoff@sgrlaw.com>> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015 11:48 PM To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto: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> [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Poncelet Ileleji Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:28 AM To: Jay Chapman Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June Same here I concur with George Kind Regards Poncelet. On 11 June 2015 at 14:25, Jay Chapman <jay@digimedia.com<mailto:jay@digimedia.com>> wrote: I agree with George as well. Jay On Jun 10, 2015 8:35 AM, "Paul Keating" <Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>> wrote: I agree with George on these which is why my suggested revisions removed these proposed questions. PRK On 6/10/15 2:09 PM, "George Kirikos" <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote:

For point/question #3, in particular:

"What if the Mutual Jurisdiction requirement specified that, to apply to IGOs, it has to be a jurisdiction of one of its member states?"

I don't see how this could ever be acceptable to registrants. For example, for a North American registrant using a North American registrar, an IGO consisting of member states from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey might place the "mutual jurisdiction" in one of those 4 countries that have absolutely nothing to do with the registrant, rather than in North America.

The same would apply to the rest of point #3, i.e. allowing the IGO to "forum shop" by selecting a jurisdiction of a member state. For a court to even have jurisdiction over a registrant, there must be some connection to the underlying dispute and parties. That has normally been (a) location of registrant, (b) location of registrar, or (c) location of registry operator.

I know these are just 'exploratory' questions, but I don't see why any legitimacy should be attached to ad hoc proposals like the above by submitting them to 'experts' in the first place. This should be about fact-finding, not an informal 'negotiation' with IGOs. Conclusions/solutions should flow from the facts. Putting out possible 'solutions' first, and then trying to come up with some 'rationale' to justify them later is the wrong way to do things, in my opinion.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:416-588-0269> http://www.leap.com/

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote:

...

Dear WG members,

The proposed agenda for our next meeting, scheduled for Wednesday 10 June, is as follows:

Roll call/updates to SOI Discuss and finalize questions for independent legal expert (see attached for draft document from the WG co-chairs) Planning for WG meeting in Buenos Aires/next steps

It may be that we will not need the full hour; however, Petter and Phil would like the group to have this call prior to the open meeting we are scheduled to have in Buenos Aires, on Wednesday 24 June at 10.00 a.m. ART (local time). For those WG members who will not be present in Buenos Aires, the usual remote participation facilities will be available, and we¹ll send call-in and other details prior to the date.

Thanks and cheers Mary

Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4889<tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889> Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>

_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

---

Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

_______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd www.ymca.gm<http://www.ymca.gm> www.waigf.org<http://www.waigf.org> www.aficta.org<http://www.aficta.org> www.itag.gm<http://www.itag.gm> www.npoc.org<http://www.npoc.org> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 www.diplointernetgovernance.org<http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org> James L. Bikoff<http://www.sgrlaw.com/attorneys/profiles/bikoff-james/> | Attorney at Law 202-263-4341 phone 202-263-4329 fax www.sgrlaw.com<http://www.sgrlaw.com> jbikoff@sgrlaw.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgrlaw.com> 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007 <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<mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp James L. Bikoff<http://www.sgrlaw.com/attorneys/profiles/bikoff-james/> | Attorney at Law 202-263-4341 phone 202-263-4329 fax www.sgrlaw.com<http://www.sgrlaw.com> jbikoff@sgrlaw.com<mailto:jbikoff@sgrlaw.com> 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20007 [cid:image313fe7.JPG@dc920481.408daf7b]<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.