WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Hi folks, I draw folks' attention to the page at: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/ which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com domain name. Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com case is the 2nd case in the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today. No other changes were made. I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal. This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences, just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous. This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
P.S. Attached are the 2 PDFs. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 11:54 AM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
I draw folks' attention to the page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com domain name. Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com case is the 2nd case in the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today.
No other changes were made.
I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal.
This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences, just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous.
This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
George K I think this is getting way into weeds, too personal and not productive. In your Pupa.com case, you filed a lawsuit in Ontario after the UDRP was filed. The defendant (who had filed the UDRP) apparently did not make an appearance in the lawsuit you filed. Your attorneys then filed for a default judgment that was granted -- particularly because nobody contested the matter. This is hardly a fully litigated case where a judge has submissions from both parties and then rules on the merits. I believe the idea behind the WIPO page is to have cases that were litigated by the parties (who both appeared) and where the court issued a decision. Just so you know, there are dozens of cases where parties have filed lawsuits against a party who registered a domain name and/or who won a UDRP that resulted in defaults. In my mind, those cases are not the type case that typically brings any real learning as to whether there has been a bad faith use or registration of a domain name. Like settlements, which often involve business decisions, sometimes parties default in lawsuits -- particularly, where, as in your case the costs could be high and the domain name may ultimately not be worth the effort. There are many entities that may make the business decision that since they have no connection to the forum (e.g., they do no business in the country in question and have no presence there), they don't want to spend the money and thus simply default. So, in my view, I would not read your case as being particularly meaningful as to the merits as there was no real litigation with briefs and evidence submitted by both sides. So while you might want your case highlighted for personal reasons, I don't really think it belongs on the page if the page is meant to dedicated to fully litigated cases where the parties both appeared and then resulted in a court decision (e.g. Barcelona.com). -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:55 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants? Hi folks, I draw folks' attention to the page at: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/ which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com domain name. Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com case is the 2nd case in the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today. No other changes were made. I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal. This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences, just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous. This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Georges: Nice try, but Parvi.org is a default judgment, but is included, and is even explicitly labelled as such! http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/ This was petty retaliation by WIPO, plain and simple. I'm sure you scored some points with them coming to their aid. Are folks too scared to speak out on my side, because they fear similar retaliation against them? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
George K
I think this is getting way into weeds, too personal and not productive. In your Pupa.com case, you filed a lawsuit in Ontario after the UDRP was filed. The defendant (who had filed the UDRP) apparently did not make an appearance in the lawsuit you filed. Your attorneys then filed for a default judgment that was granted -- particularly because nobody contested the matter. This is hardly a fully litigated case where a judge has submissions from both parties and then rules on the merits. I believe the idea behind the WIPO page is to have cases that were litigated by the parties (who both appeared) and where the court issued a decision. Just so you know, there are dozens of cases where parties have filed lawsuits against a party who registered a domain name and/or who won a UDRP that resulted in defaults. In my mind, those cases are not the type case that typically brings any real learning as to whether there has been a bad faith use or registration of a domain name. Like settlements, which often involve business decisions, sometimes parties default in lawsuits -- particularly, where, as in your case the costs could be high and the domain name may ultimately not be worth the effort. There are many entities that may make the business decision that since they have no connection to the forum (e.g., they do no business in the country in question and have no presence there), they don't want to spend the money and thus simply default. So, in my view, I would not read your case as being particularly meaningful as to the merits as there was no real litigation with briefs and evidence submitted by both sides. So while you might want your case highlighted for personal reasons, I don't really think it belongs on the page if the page is meant to dedicated to fully litigated cases where the parties both appeared and then resulted in a court decision (e.g. Barcelona.com).
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:55 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Hi folks,
I draw folks' attention to the page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com domain name. Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com case is the 2nd case in the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today.
No other changes were made.
I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal.
This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences, just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous.
This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
George K Parvi.org is a very very different case from your case. There was an actual hearing in that case with evidence presented, arguments made etc. The case has significance because it was, as far as I know, the first case where a court awarded statutory damages to the domain owner for what the court found to be reverse domain name hijacking. Ask Paul K and John B to explain this to you. Your case had none of that and has had no significance anywhere near Parvi.org. It is like hundreds of other cases involving a run of the mill default. Again the WIPO page is meant to provide meaningful cases. From: icann@leap.com Sent: June 7, 2018 12:29 PM To: ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants? Georges: Nice try, but Parvi.org<http://Parvi.org> is a default judgment, but is included, and is even explicitly labelled as such! http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/ This was petty retaliation by WIPO, plain and simple. I'm sure you scored some points with them coming to their aid. Are folks too scared to speak out on my side, because they fear similar retaliation against them? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:4165880269> http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com>> wrote:
George K
I think this is getting way into weeds, too personal and not productive. In your Pupa.com<http://Pupa.com> case, you filed a lawsuit in Ontario after the UDRP was filed. The defendant (who had filed the UDRP) apparently did not make an appearance in the lawsuit you filed. Your attorneys then filed for a default judgment that was granted -- particularly because nobody contested the matter. This is hardly a fully litigated case where a judge has submissions from both parties and then rules on the merits. I believe the idea behind the WIPO page is to have cases that were litigated by the parties (who both appeared) and where the court issued a decision. Just so you know, there are dozens of cases where parties have filed lawsuits against a party who registered a domain name and/or who won a UDRP that resulted in defaults. In my mind, those cases are not the type case that typically brings any real learning as to whether there has been a bad faith use or registration of a domain name. Like settlements, which often involve business decisions, sometimes parties default in lawsuits -- particularly, where, as in your case the costs could be high and the domain name may ultimately not be worth the effort. There are many entities that may make the business decision that since they have no connection to the forum (e.g., they do no business in the country in question and have no presence there), they don't want to spend the money and thus simply default. So, in my view, I would not read your case as being particularly meaningful as to the merits as there was no real litigation with briefs and evidence submitted by both sides. So while you might want your case highlighted for personal reasons, I don't really think it belongs on the page if the page is meant to dedicated to fully litigated cases where the parties both appeared and then resulted in a court decision (e.g. Barcelona.com<http://Barcelona.com>).
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:55 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Hi folks,
I draw folks' attention to the page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com<http://Pupa.com> domain name. Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com<http://Pupa.com> case is the 2nd case in the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today.
No other changes were made.
I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal.
This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences, just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous.
This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:4165880269> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500<tel:4048156500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Georges: My company's court case also had an actual oral hearing before the judge: http://www.loffs.com//pupa/Pupa-Order-March-11-2013.pdf "and on hearing the submissions of counsel" I know, because I have the legal bills for my law firm's attendance at court. My case also had an award of costs (there are no statutory damages for a case of this type in my jurisdiction). Why don't you take a look at the the judgment of the Parvi.org case that you stated belongs on that page: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/parvi-order.pdf and contrast it with the judgment for the Pupa.com case above. I'm glad that you agree with me that Parvi.org has significance (and belongs on that page). So does the Pupa.com case. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges < ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
George K
Parvi.org is a very very different case from your case. There was an actual hearing in that case with evidence presented, arguments made etc. The case has significance because it was, as far as I know, the first case where a court awarded statutory damages to the domain owner for what the court found to be reverse domain name hijacking. Ask Paul K and John B to explain this to you. Your case had none of that and has had no significance anywhere near Parvi.org. It is like hundreds of other cases involving a run of the mill default. Again the WIPO page is meant to provide meaningful cases.
*From:* icann@leap.com *Sent:* June 7, 2018 12:29 PM *To:* ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Georges:
Nice try, but Parvi.org is a default judgment, but is included, and is even explicitly labelled as such!
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
This was petty retaliation by WIPO, plain and simple. I'm sure you scored some points with them coming to their aid. Are folks too scared to speak out on my side, because they fear similar retaliation against them?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <4165880269> http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
George K
I think this is getting way into weeds, too personal and not productive. In your Pupa.com case, you filed a lawsuit in Ontario after the UDRP was filed. The defendant (who had filed the UDRP) apparently did not make an appearance in the lawsuit you filed. Your attorneys then filed for a default judgment that was granted -- particularly because nobody contested the matter. This is hardly a fully litigated case where a judge has submissions from both parties and then rules on the merits. I believe the idea behind the WIPO page is to have cases that were litigated by the parties (who both appeared) and where the court issued a decision. Just so you know, there are dozens of cases where parties have filed lawsuits against a party who registered a domain name and/or who won a UDRP that resulted in defaults. In my mind, those cases are not the type case that typically brings any real learning as to whether there has been a bad faith use or registration of a domain name. Like settlements, which often involve business decisions, sometimes parties default in lawsuits -- particularly, where, as in your case the costs could be high and the domain name may ultimately not be worth the effort. There are many entities that may make the business decision that since they have no connection to the forum (e.g., they do no business in the country in question and have no presence there), they don't want to spend the money and thus simply default. So, in my view, I would not read your case as being particularly meaningful as to the merits as there was no real litigation with briefs and evidence submitted by both sides. So while you might want your case highlighted for personal reasons, I don't really think it belongs on the page if the page is meant to dedicated to fully litigated cases where the parties both appeared and then resulted in a court decision (e.g. Barcelona.com).
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:55 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Hi folks,
I draw folks' attention to the page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com domain name. Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com case is the 2nd case in the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today.
No other changes were made.
I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal.
This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences, just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous.
This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <4165880269> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500 <4048156500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
As you would say, nice try George. The cases are vastly different. Your case has no significance. It is simply a default judgment and from what I can tell does not look to have had anywhere near the evidence submitted and arguments made as what was involved in Parvi. Personally I did not say Parvi belongs on the WIPO page. However, I can understand why that case would be on the page given that it touched on an issue and did something that no other court had done up to then. Your case has none of that and is simply a garden variety, run of the mill default. There is nothing that warrants it being on a page that concerns meaningful decisions. There are hundreds of other cases that involve defaults that are similarly situated to your case and are not that meaningful. Like I said, if you want to have a page that lists every domain name related lawsuit ever, then get ICANN to create such a page or, alternatively, hire some research assistants and put together a list of the hundreds of lawsuits out there and get it posted on ICANN or some other venue. From: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 1:54 PM To: Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants? Georges: My company's court case also had an actual oral hearing before the judge: http://www.loffs.com//pupa/Pupa-Order-March-11-2013.pdf<http://www.loffs.com/pupa/Pupa-Order-March-11-2013.pdf> "and on hearing the submissions of counsel" I know, because I have the legal bills for my law firm's attendance at court. My case also had an award of costs (there are no statutory damages for a case of this type in my jurisdiction). Why don't you take a look at the the judgment of the Parvi.org case that you stated belongs on that page: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/parvi-order.pdf and contrast it with the judgment for the Pupa.com case above. I'm glad that you agree with me that Parvi.org has significance (and belongs on that page). So does the Pupa.com case. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com>> wrote: George K Parvi.org is a very very different case from your case. There was an actual hearing in that case with evidence presented, arguments made etc. The case has significance because it was, as far as I know, the first case where a court awarded statutory damages to the domain owner for what the court found to be reverse domain name hijacking. Ask Paul K and John B to explain this to you. Your case had none of that and has had no significance anywhere near Parvi.org. It is like hundreds of other cases involving a run of the mill default. Again the WIPO page is meant to provide meaningful cases. From: icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com> Sent: June 7, 2018 12:29 PM To: ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants? Georges: Nice try, but Parvi.org<http://Parvi.org> is a default judgment, but is included, and is even explicitly labelled as such! http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/ This was petty retaliation by WIPO, plain and simple. I'm sure you scored some points with them coming to their aid. Are folks too scared to speak out on my side, because they fear similar retaliation against them? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:4165880269> http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com>> wrote:
George K
I think this is getting way into weeds, too personal and not productive. In your Pupa.com<http://Pupa.com> case, you filed a lawsuit in Ontario after the UDRP was filed. The defendant (who had filed the UDRP) apparently did not make an appearance in the lawsuit you filed. Your attorneys then filed for a default judgment that was granted -- particularly because nobody contested the matter. This is hardly a fully litigated case where a judge has submissions from both parties and then rules on the merits. I believe the idea behind the WIPO page is to have cases that were litigated by the parties (who both appeared) and where the court issued a decision. Just so you know, there are dozens of cases where parties have filed lawsuits against a party who registered a domain name and/or who won a UDRP that resulted in defaults. In my mind, those cases are not the type case that typically brings any real learning as to whether there has been a bad faith use or registration of a domain name. Like settlements, which often involve business decisions, sometimes parties default in lawsuits -- particularly, where, as in your case the costs could be high and the domain name may ultimately not be worth the effort. There are many entities that may make the business decision that since they have no connection to the forum (e.g., they do no business in the country in question and have no presence there), they don't want to spend the money and thus simply default. So, in my view, I would not read your case as being particularly meaningful as to the merits as there was no real litigation with briefs and evidence submitted by both sides. So while you might want your case highlighted for personal reasons, I don't really think it belongs on the page if the page is meant to dedicated to fully litigated cases where the parties both appeared and then resulted in a court decision (e.g. Barcelona.com<http://Barcelona.com>).
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:55 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Hi folks,
I draw folks' attention to the page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com<http://Pupa.com> domain name. Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com<http://Pupa.com> case is the 2nd case in the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today.
No other changes were made.
I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal.
This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences, just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous.
This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:4165880269> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500<tel:4048156500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
I fail to see how any of these ad hominem allegations are actually relevant to the current substantive focus of this WG. If folks have grievances with particular individuals, then they should pursue the proper channels for complaints (we’ve already filed at least one and will likely now file yet another), rather than engage in numerous disruptive and distracting emails to the entire WG. Sincerely, Phil ________________________________ [https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b113a1d2a61b_WIPG_LogoMark.png]<https://www.winterfeldt.law/> Phillip V. Marano Senior Associate Winterfeldt IP Group 1200 17<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>th<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>, Ste 501<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> phil@winterfeldt.law<mailto:phil@winterfeldt.law> +1 202.759.5834 This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nahitchevansky, Georges Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 2:14 PM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants? As you would say, nice try George. The cases are vastly different. Your case has no significance. It is simply a default judgment and from what I can tell does not look to have had anywhere near the evidence submitted and arguments made as what was involved in Parvi. Personally I did not say Parvi belongs on the WIPO page. However, I can understand why that case would be on the page given that it touched on an issue and did something that no other court had done up to then. Your case has none of that and is simply a garden variety, run of the mill default. There is nothing that warrants it being on a page that concerns meaningful decisions. There are hundreds of other cases that involve defaults that are similarly situated to your case and are not that meaningful. Like I said, if you want to have a page that lists every domain name related lawsuit ever, then get ICANN to create such a page or, alternatively, hire some research assistants and put together a list of the hundreds of lawsuits out there and get it posted on ICANN or some other venue. From: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 1:54 PM To: Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants? Georges: My company's court case also had an actual oral hearing before the judge: http://www.loffs.com//pupa/Pupa-Order-March-11-2013.pdf<http://www.loffs.com/pupa/Pupa-Order-March-11-2013.pdf> "and on hearing the submissions of counsel" I know, because I have the legal bills for my law firm's attendance at court. My case also had an award of costs (there are no statutory damages for a case of this type in my jurisdiction). Why don't you take a look at the the judgment of the Parvi.org case that you stated belongs on that page: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/parvi-order.pdf and contrast it with the judgment for the Pupa.com case above. I'm glad that you agree with me that Parvi.org has significance (and belongs on that page). So does the Pupa.com case. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com>> wrote: George K Parvi.org is a very very different case from your case. There was an actual hearing in that case with evidence presented, arguments made etc. The case has significance because it was, as far as I know, the first case where a court awarded statutory damages to the domain owner for what the court found to be reverse domain name hijacking. Ask Paul K and John B to explain this to you. Your case had none of that and has had no significance anywhere near Parvi.org. It is like hundreds of other cases involving a run of the mill default. Again the WIPO page is meant to provide meaningful cases. From: icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com> Sent: June 7, 2018 12:29 PM To: ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants? Georges: Nice try, but Parvi.org<http://Parvi.org> is a default judgment, but is included, and is even explicitly labelled as such! http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/ This was petty retaliation by WIPO, plain and simple. I'm sure you scored some points with them coming to their aid. Are folks too scared to speak out on my side, because they fear similar retaliation against them? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:4165880269> http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com>> wrote:
George K
I think this is getting way into weeds, too personal and not productive. In your Pupa.com<http://Pupa.com> case, you filed a lawsuit in Ontario after the UDRP was filed. The defendant (who had filed the UDRP) apparently did not make an appearance in the lawsuit you filed. Your attorneys then filed for a default judgment that was granted -- particularly because nobody contested the matter. This is hardly a fully litigated case where a judge has submissions from both parties and then rules on the merits. I believe the idea behind the WIPO page is to have cases that were litigated by the parties (who both appeared) and where the court issued a decision. Just so you know, there are dozens of cases where parties have filed lawsuits against a party who registered a domain name and/or who won a UDRP that resulted in defaults. In my mind, those cases are not the type case that typically brings any real learning as to whether there has been a bad faith use or registration of a domain name. Like settlements, which often involve business decisions, sometimes parties default in lawsuits -- particularly, where, as in your case the costs could be high and the domain name may ultimately not be worth the effort. There are many entities that may make the business decision that since they have no connection to the forum (e.g., they do no business in the country in question and have no presence there), they don't want to spend the money and thus simply default. So, in my view, I would not read your case as being particularly meaningful as to the merits as there was no real litigation with briefs and evidence submitted by both sides. So while you might want your case highlighted for personal reasons, I don't really think it belongs on the page if the page is meant to dedicated to fully litigated cases where the parties both appeared and then resulted in a court decision (e.g. Barcelona.com<http://Barcelona.com>).
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:55 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Hi folks,
I draw folks' attention to the page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com<http://Pupa.com> domain name. Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com<http://Pupa.com> case is the 2nd case in the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today.
No other changes were made.
I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal.
This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences, just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous.
This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:4165880269> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500<tel:4048156500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Let's imagine a scenario where a different co-chair retaliated against a different member of this PDP. I would want to know, instead of having it swept under the rug. Transparency is important. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:25 PM, Phillip Marano <Phil@winterfeldt.law> wrote:
I fail to see how any of these ad hominem allegations are actually relevant to the current substantive focus of this WG.
If folks have grievances with particular individuals, then they should pursue the proper channels for complaints (we’ve already filed at least one and will likely now file yet another), rather than engage in numerous disruptive and distracting emails to the entire WG.
Sincerely,
Phil
------------------------------
[image: https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b1...] <https://www.winterfeldt.law/>
*Phillip V. Marano*
Senior Associate
Winterfeldt IP Group
1200 17th St NW, Ste 501
Washington, DC 20036
phil@winterfeldt.law
+1 202.759.5834
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Nahitchevansky, Georges *Sent:* Thursday, June 7, 2018 2:14 PM *To:* George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>
*Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
As you would say, nice try George. The cases are vastly different. Your case has no significance. It is simply a default judgment and from what I can tell does not look to have had anywhere near the evidence submitted and arguments made as what was involved in Parvi. Personally I did not say Parvi belongs on the WIPO page. However, I can understand why that case would be on the page given that it touched on an issue and did something that no other court had done up to then. Your case has none of that and is simply a garden variety, run of the mill default. There is nothing that warrants it being on a page that concerns meaningful decisions. There are hundreds of other cases that involve defaults that are similarly situated to your case and are not that meaningful. Like I said, if you want to have a page that lists every domain name related lawsuit ever, then get ICANN to create such a page or, alternatively, hire some research assistants and put together a list of the hundreds of lawsuits out there and get it posted on ICANN or some other venue.
*From:* George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> *Sent:* Thursday, June 7, 2018 1:54 PM *To:* Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Georges:
My company's court case also had an actual oral hearing before the judge:
http://www.loffs.com//pupa/Pupa-Order-March-11-2013.pdf <http://www.loffs.com/pupa/Pupa-Order-March-11-2013.pdf>
"and on hearing the submissions of counsel"
I know, because I have the legal bills for my law firm's attendance at court. My case also had an award of costs (there are no statutory damages for a case of this type in my jurisdiction).
Why don't you take a look at the the judgment of the Parvi.org case that you stated belongs on that page:
http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/parvi-order.pdf
and contrast it with the judgment for the Pupa.com case above. I'm glad that you agree with me that Parvi.org has significance (and belongs on that page). So does the Pupa.com case.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges < ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
George K
Parvi.org is a very very different case from your case. There was an actual hearing in that case with evidence presented, arguments made etc. The case has significance because it was, as far as I know, the first case where a court awarded statutory damages to the domain owner for what the court found to be reverse domain name hijacking. Ask Paul K and John B to explain this to you. Your case had none of that and has had no significance anywhere near Parvi.org. It is like hundreds of other cases involving a run of the mill default. Again the WIPO page is meant to provide meaningful cases.
*From:* icann@leap.com
*Sent:* June 7, 2018 12:29 PM
*To:* ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com
*Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Georges:
Nice try, but Parvi.org is a default judgment, but is included, and is even explicitly labelled as such!
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
This was petty retaliation by WIPO, plain and simple. I'm sure you scored some points with them coming to their aid. Are folks too scared to speak out on my side, because they fear similar retaliation against them?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <4165880269> http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
George K
I think this is getting way into weeds, too personal and not productive. In your Pupa.com case, you filed a lawsuit in Ontario after the UDRP was filed. The defendant (who had filed the UDRP) apparently did not make an appearance in the lawsuit you filed. Your attorneys then filed for a default judgment that was granted -- particularly because nobody contested the matter. This is hardly a fully litigated case where a judge has submissions from both parties and then rules on the merits. I believe the idea behind the WIPO page is to have cases that were litigated by the parties (who both appeared) and where the court issued a decision. Just so you know, there are dozens of cases where parties have filed lawsuits against a party who registered a domain name and/or who won a UDRP that resulted in defaults. In my mind, those cases are not the type case that typically brings any real learning as to whether there has been a bad faith use or registration of a domain name. Like settlements, which often involve business decisions, sometimes parties default in lawsuits -- particularly, where, as in your case the costs could be high and the domain name may ultimately not be worth the effort. There are many entities that may make the business decision that since they have no connection to the forum (e.g., they do no business in the country in question and have no presence there), they don't want to spend the money and thus simply default. So, in my view, I would not read your case as being particularly meaningful as to the merits as there was no real litigation with briefs and evidence submitted by both sides. So while you might want your case highlighted for personal reasons, I don't really think it belongs on the page if the page is meant to dedicated to fully litigated cases where the parties both appeared and then resulted in a court decision (e.g. Barcelona.com).
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:55 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Hi folks,
I draw folks' attention to the page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com domain name. Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com case is the 2nd case in the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today.
No other changes were made.
I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal.
This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences, just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous.
This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <4165880269> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500 <4048156500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Enough already. I’ve now received 18 emails today regarding a matter unrelated to this working group. I see nothing in WIPO’s contract w/ ICANN that requires they list court cases at all. Please tell me if I’ve missed something. Otherwise, WIPO’s removal of items from their own website is their business. If Mr. Krikos takes issue with a page of WIPO’s website (a page not required pursuant to ICANN’s Provider Agreement), he is free to reach out to them directly. It is, however, a misuse of this group’s resources to lodge his personal complaints here. Likewise, this inflammatory language & accusations should not be taken lightly. Phil & Kathy: Respectfully, it’s time for you to exercise some control here. It was not appropriate for a member of this PDP to pressure WIPO to change their website as a condition for Brian Beckham’s consideration as a co-chair (per my email on 30-April-18), the personal invective against Greg Shatan was out of line, and it is not now appropriate to make accusations against WIPO which are clearly unrelated to our review. I look forward to your advice. Cyntia King O: +1 816.633.7647 C: +1 818.209.6088 From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 1:36 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants? Let's imagine a scenario where a different co-chair retaliated against a different member of this PDP. I would want to know, instead of having it swept under the rug. Transparency is important. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:25 PM, Phillip Marano <Phil@winterfeldt.law <mailto:Phil@winterfeldt.law> > wrote: I fail to see how any of these ad hominem allegations are actually relevant to the current substantive focus of this WG. If folks have grievances with particular individuals, then they should pursue the proper channels for complaints (we’ve already filed at least one and will likely now file yet another), rather than engage in numerous disruptive and distracting emails to the entire WG. Sincerely, Phil _____ <https://www.winterfeldt.law/> <https://www.winterfeldt.law/> <https://www.winterfeldt.law/> Phillip V. Marano Senior Associate Winterfeldt IP Group 1200 17th St NW, Ste 501 Washington, DC 20036 <mailto:phil@winterfeldt.law> phil@winterfeldt.law +1 202.759.5834 This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Nahitchevansky, Georges Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 2:14 PM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com <mailto:icann@leap.com> > Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants? As you would say, nice try George. The cases are vastly different. Your case has no significance. It is simply a default judgment and from what I can tell does not look to have had anywhere near the evidence submitted and arguments made as what was involved in Parvi. Personally I did not say Parvi belongs on the WIPO page. However, I can understand why that case would be on the page given that it touched on an issue and did something that no other court had done up to then. Your case has none of that and is simply a garden variety, run of the mill default. There is nothing that warrants it being on a page that concerns meaningful decisions. There are hundreds of other cases that involve defaults that are similarly situated to your case and are not that meaningful. Like I said, if you want to have a page that lists every domain name related lawsuit ever, then get ICANN to create such a page or, alternatively, hire some research assistants and put together a list of the hundreds of lawsuits out there and get it posted on ICANN or some other venue. From: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com <mailto:icann@leap.com> > Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 1:54 PM To: Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com <mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> > Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants? Georges: My company's court case also had an actual oral hearing before the judge: http://www.loffs.com//pupa/Pupa-Order-March-11-2013.pdf <http://www.loffs.com/pupa/Pupa-Order-March-11-2013.pdf> "and on hearing the submissions of counsel" I know, because I have the legal bills for my law firm's attendance at court. My case also had an award of costs (there are no statutory damages for a case of this type in my jurisdiction). Why don't you take a look at the the judgment of the Parvi.org case that you stated belongs on that page: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/parvi-order.pdf and contrast it with the judgment for the Pupa.com case above. I'm glad that you agree with me that Parvi.org has significance (and belongs on that page). So does the Pupa.com case. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com <mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> > wrote: George K Parvi.org is a very very different case from your case. There was an actual hearing in that case with evidence presented, arguments made etc. The case has significance because it was, as far as I know, the first case where a court awarded statutory damages to the domain owner for what the court found to be reverse domain name hijacking. Ask Paul K and John B to explain this to you. Your case had none of that and has had no significance anywhere near Parvi.org. It is like hundreds of other cases involving a run of the mill default. Again the WIPO page is meant to provide meaningful cases. From: icann@leap.com <mailto:icann@leap.com> Sent: June 7, 2018 12:29 PM To: ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com <mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants? Georges: Nice try, but Parvi.org <http://Parvi.org> is a default judgment, but is included, and is even explicitly labelled as such! http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/ This was petty retaliation by WIPO, plain and simple. I'm sure you scored some points with them coming to their aid. Are folks too scared to speak out on my side, because they fear similar retaliation against them? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <tel:4165880269> http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com <mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> > wrote:
George K
I think this is getting way into weeds, too personal and not productive. In your Pupa.com <http://Pupa.com> case, you filed a lawsuit in Ontario after the UDRP was filed. The defendant (who had filed the UDRP) apparently did not make an appearance in the lawsuit you filed. Your attorneys then filed for a default judgment that was granted -- particularly because nobody contested the matter. This is hardly a fully litigated case where a judge has submissions from both parties and then rules on the merits. I believe the idea behind the WIPO page is to have cases that were litigated by the parties (who both appeared) and where the court issued a decision. Just so you know, there are dozens of cases where parties have filed lawsuits against a party who registered a domain name and/or who won a UDRP that resulted in defaults. In my mind, those cases are not the type case that typically brings any real learning as to whether there has been a bad faith use or registration of a domain name. Like settlements, which often involve business decisions, sometimes parties default in lawsuits -- particularly, where, as in your case the costs could be high and the domain name may ultimately not be worth the effort. There are many entities that may make the business decision that since they have no connection to the forum (e.g., they do no business in the country in question and have no presence there), they don't want to spend the money and thus simply default. So, in my view, I would not read your case as being particularly meaningful as to the merits as there was no real litigation with briefs and evidence submitted by both sides. So while you might want your case highlighted for personal reasons, I don't really think it belongs on the page if the page is meant to dedicated to fully litigated cases where the parties both appeared and then resulted in a court decision (e.g. Barcelona.com <http://Barcelona.com> ).
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:55 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Hi folks,
I draw folks' attention to the page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com <http://Pupa.com> domain name. Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com <http://Pupa.com> case is the 2nd case in the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today.
No other changes were made.
I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal.
This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences, just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous.
This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <tel:4165880269> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500 <tel:4048156500> , and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
I am quite concerned that this WG has again been diverted into an extended and divisive dialogue that is far removed from the policy issues we are required to address by our Charter. The only possible connection of the initiating incident to our work would be consideration, likely in phase 2 of our activities, of whether ICANN or another organization should attempt to compile and publicly display results of all follow-up litigation to UDRP and URS decisions that it is aware of. But the email that sparked the dialogue was not about policy proposals but about unsupported accusations of retaliation against the sender. Mr. Kirikos has identified one fact – that a court case filed after a UDRP decision involving the pupa.com domain had been removed from a WIPO webpage – and has extrapolated that into a charge that this action is evidence of “direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP”. Speaking only for myself, and recalling the adage that correlation is not causation, I am not inclined to leap to the conclusion that WIPO took this action as a retaliatory measure absent direct evidence of such motivation. Further, while the publication of court actions taken in the wake of UDRP decisions may have worthwhile accountability and transparency benefits – a subject that this WG can consider at the proper time – I personally question whether this “retaliation” has resulted in any harm to Mr. Kirikos and his company. I am most concerned by the accuser’s further extrapolation that the removal of the pupa.com case “calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious.” (Emphasis added) I apologize that it is not at all obvious to me what retaliation members might credibly face from WIPO if they support policy recommendations with which it has an official disagreement. As very few members of this WG have ever filed a judicial appeal of a UDRP decision that might be removed from a WIPO landing page, can this be a serious suggestion that WIPO would seek to sway UDRP panelists to be biased against any such WG member who had a UDRP adjudicated by WIPO, and that the panelist would follow that illicit suggestion? Brian Beckham participated in his first co-chair planning call, along with Kathy and me, this past Friday, in which we jointly and collegially agreed upon the work plan for this WG up to and through ICANN 62, and that plan was distributed to WG members on Tuesday. All three of us are mindful that it is the role of the co-chairs to administer the WG in a fair and efficient manner that permits its members to decide policy recommendations. Our work plan for this month is quite heavy and will lay the groundwork for serious and informed discussion of URS policy options this summer, and then for remaining issues in the fall. Yesterday and today members of the Data Sub-team held nearly four hours of discussion with the Analysis Group to set in final form the survey questions that will be dispatched shortly to provide us with additional data to guide our policy decisions. It is through such tedious but necessary sessions that our work is being advanced, through hard work and cooperation. I would suggest we direct our energies toward such constructive efforts and not get sidetracked. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phillip Marano Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 2:25 PM To: 'Nahitchevansky, Georges' <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com>; George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants? I fail to see how any of these ad hominem allegations are actually relevant to the current substantive focus of this WG. If folks have grievances with particular individuals, then they should pursue the proper channels for complaints (we’ve already filed at least one and will likely now file yet another), rather than engage in numerous disruptive and distracting emails to the entire WG. Sincerely, Phil _____ <https://www.winterfeldt.law/> Phillip V. Marano Senior Associate Winterfeldt IP Group 1200 17<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>th<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>, Ste 501<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> phil@winterfeldt.law<mailto:phil@winterfeldt.law> +1 202.759.5834 This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nahitchevansky, Georges Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 2:14 PM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants? As you would say, nice try George. The cases are vastly different. Your case has no significance. It is simply a default judgment and from what I can tell does not look to have had anywhere near the evidence submitted and arguments made as what was involved in Parvi. Personally I did not say Parvi belongs on the WIPO page. However, I can understand why that case would be on the page given that it touched on an issue and did something that no other court had done up to then. Your case has none of that and is simply a garden variety, run of the mill default. There is nothing that warrants it being on a page that concerns meaningful decisions. There are hundreds of other cases that involve defaults that are similarly situated to your case and are not that meaningful. Like I said, if you want to have a page that lists every domain name related lawsuit ever, then get ICANN to create such a page or, alternatively, hire some research assistants and put together a list of the hundreds of lawsuits out there and get it posted on ICANN or some other venue. From: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 1:54 PM To: Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants? Georges: My company's court case also had an actual oral hearing before the judge: http://www.loffs.com//pupa/Pupa-Order-March-11-2013.pdf<http://www.loffs.com/pupa/Pupa-Order-March-11-2013.pdf> "and on hearing the submissions of counsel" I know, because I have the legal bills for my law firm's attendance at court. My case also had an award of costs (there are no statutory damages for a case of this type in my jurisdiction). Why don't you take a look at the the judgment of the Parvi.org case that you stated belongs on that page: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/parvi-order.pdf and contrast it with the judgment for the Pupa.com case above. I'm glad that you agree with me that Parvi.org has significance (and belongs on that page). So does the Pupa.com case. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com>> wrote: George K Parvi.org is a very very different case from your case. There was an actual hearing in that case with evidence presented, arguments made etc. The case has significance because it was, as far as I know, the first case where a court awarded statutory damages to the domain owner for what the court found to be reverse domain name hijacking. Ask Paul K and John B to explain this to you. Your case had none of that and has had no significance anywhere near Parvi.org. It is like hundreds of other cases involving a run of the mill default. Again the WIPO page is meant to provide meaningful cases. From: icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com> Sent: June 7, 2018 12:29 PM To: ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants? Georges: Nice try, but Parvi.org<http://Parvi.org> is a default judgment, but is included, and is even explicitly labelled as such! http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/ This was petty retaliation by WIPO, plain and simple. I'm sure you scored some points with them coming to their aid. Are folks too scared to speak out on my side, because they fear similar retaliation against them? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:4165880269> http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com>> wrote:
George K
I think this is getting way into weeds, too personal and not productive. In your Pupa.com<http://Pupa.com> case, you filed a lawsuit in Ontario after the UDRP was filed. The defendant (who had filed the UDRP) apparently did not make an appearance in the lawsuit you filed. Your attorneys then filed for a default judgment that was granted -- particularly because nobody contested the matter. This is hardly a fully litigated case where a judge has submissions from both parties and then rules on the merits. I believe the idea behind the WIPO page is to have cases that were litigated by the parties (who both appeared) and where the court issued a decision. Just so you know, there are dozens of cases where parties have filed lawsuits against a party who registered a domain name and/or who won a UDRP that resulted in defaults. In my mind, those cases are not the type case that typically brings any real learning as to whether there has been a bad faith use or registration of a domain name. Like settlements, which often involve business decisions, sometimes parties default in lawsuits -- particularly, where, as in your case the costs could be high and the domain name may ultimately not be worth the effort. There are many entities that may make the business decision that since they have no connection to the forum (e.g., they do no business in the country in question and have no presence there), they don't want to spend the money and thus simply default. So, in my view, I would not read your case as being particularly meaningful as to the merits as there was no real litigation with briefs and evidence submitted by both sides. So while you might want your case highlighted for personal reasons, I don't really think it belongs on the page if the page is meant to dedicated to fully litigated cases where the parties both appeared and then resulted in a court decision (e.g. Barcelona.com<http://Barcelona.com>).
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:55 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Hi folks,
I draw folks' attention to the page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com<http://Pupa.com> domain name. Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com<http://Pupa.com> case is the 2nd case in the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today.
No other changes were made.
I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal.
This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences, just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous.
This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:4165880269> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500<tel:4048156500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Phil: Without responding to every point you raised, WIPO has other ways to retaliate against PDP members. For example, they can decline to appoint panelists to UDRP panels, since they have great control over assignments to cases. A number of PDP members are WIPO panelists and can be hurt financially if their appointments were cut or reduced. Furthermore, some panelists are perceived to have biases in favour of complainants or respondents. WIPO can assign a panel that is adverse to a complainant or respondent's interests, or those of their representatives, as a form of retaliation against a party to a dispute, or their representative. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 3:27 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> wrote:
I am quite concerned that this WG has again been diverted into an extended and divisive dialogue that is far removed from the policy issues we are required to address by our Charter. The only possible connection of the initiating incident to our work would be consideration, likely in phase 2 of our activities, of whether ICANN or another organization should attempt to compile and publicly display results of all follow-up litigation to UDRP and URS decisions that it is aware of. But the email that sparked the dialogue was not about policy proposals but about unsupported accusations of retaliation against the sender.
Mr. Kirikos has identified one fact – that a court case filed after a UDRP decision involving the pupa.com domain had been removed from a WIPO webpage – and has extrapolated that into a charge that this action is evidence of “direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP”. Speaking only for myself, and recalling the adage that correlation is not causation, I am not inclined to leap to the conclusion that WIPO took this action as a retaliatory measure absent direct evidence of such motivation. Further, while the publication of court actions taken in the wake of UDRP decisions may have worthwhile accountability and transparency benefits – a subject that this WG can consider at the proper time – I personally question whether this “retaliation” has resulted in any harm to Mr. Kirikos and his company.
I am most concerned by the accuser’s further extrapolation that the removal of the pupa.com case “*calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group*, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious.” (Emphasis added) I apologize that it is not at all obvious to me what retaliation members might credibly face from WIPO if they support policy recommendations with which it has an official disagreement. As very few members of this WG have ever filed a judicial appeal of a UDRP decision that might be removed from a WIPO landing page, can this be a serious suggestion that WIPO would seek to sway UDRP panelists to be biased against any such WG member who had a UDRP adjudicated by WIPO, and that the panelist would follow that illicit suggestion?
Brian Beckham participated in his first co-chair planning call, along with Kathy and me, this past Friday, in which we jointly and collegially agreed upon the work plan for this WG up to and through ICANN 62, and that plan was distributed to WG members on Tuesday. All three of us are mindful that it is the role of the co-chairs to administer the WG in a fair and efficient manner that permits its members to decide policy recommendations.
Our work plan for this month is quite heavy and will lay the groundwork for serious and informed discussion of URS policy options this summer, and then for remaining issues in the fall. Yesterday and today members of the Data Sub-team held nearly four hours of discussion with the Analysis Group to set in final form the survey questions that will be dispatched shortly to provide us with additional data to guide our policy decisions. It is through such tedious but necessary sessions that our work is being advanced, through hard work and cooperation. I would suggest we direct our energies toward such constructive efforts and not get sidetracked.
Best to all,
Philip
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190&entry=g...> Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Phillip Marano *Sent:* Thursday, June 07, 2018 2:25 PM *To:* 'Nahitchevansky, Georges' <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com>; George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
I fail to see how any of these ad hominem allegations are actually relevant to the current substantive focus of this WG.
If folks have grievances with particular individuals, then they should pursue the proper channels for complaints (we’ve already filed at least one and will likely now file yet another), rather than engage in numerous disruptive and distracting emails to the entire WG.
Sincerely,
Phil
------------------------------
[image: https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b1...] <https://www.winterfeldt.law/>
*Phillip V. Marano*
Senior Associate
Winterfeldt IP Group
1200 17th St NW, Ste 501
Washington, DC 20036
phil@winterfeldt.law
+1 202.759.5834
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Nahitchevansky, Georges *Sent:* Thursday, June 7, 2018 2:14 PM *To:* George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
As you would say, nice try George. The cases are vastly different. Your case has no significance. It is simply a default judgment and from what I can tell does not look to have had anywhere near the evidence submitted and arguments made as what was involved in Parvi. Personally I did not say Parvi belongs on the WIPO page. However, I can understand why that case would be on the page given that it touched on an issue and did something that no other court had done up to then. Your case has none of that and is simply a garden variety, run of the mill default. There is nothing that warrants it being on a page that concerns meaningful decisions. There are hundreds of other cases that involve defaults that are similarly situated to your case and are not that meaningful. Like I said, if you want to have a page that lists every domain name related lawsuit ever, then get ICANN to create such a page or, alternatively, hire some research assistants and put together a list of the hundreds of lawsuits out there and get it posted on ICANN or some other venue.
*From:* George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> *Sent:* Thursday, June 7, 2018 1:54 PM *To:* Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Georges:
My company's court case also had an actual oral hearing before the judge:
http://www.loffs.com//pupa/Pupa-Order-March-11-2013.pdf <http://www.loffs.com/pupa/Pupa-Order-March-11-2013.pdf>
"and on hearing the submissions of counsel"
I know, because I have the legal bills for my law firm's attendance at court. My case also had an award of costs (there are no statutory damages for a case of this type in my jurisdiction).
Why don't you take a look at the the judgment of the Parvi.org case that you stated belongs on that page:
http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/parvi-order.pdf
and contrast it with the judgment for the Pupa.com case above. I'm glad that you agree with me that Parvi.org has significance (and belongs on that page). So does the Pupa.com case.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges < ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
George K
Parvi.org is a very very different case from your case. There was an actual hearing in that case with evidence presented, arguments made etc. The case has significance because it was, as far as I know, the first case where a court awarded statutory damages to the domain owner for what the court found to be reverse domain name hijacking. Ask Paul K and John B to explain this to you. Your case had none of that and has had no significance anywhere near Parvi.org. It is like hundreds of other cases involving a run of the mill default. Again the WIPO page is meant to provide meaningful cases.
*From:* icann@leap.com
*Sent:* June 7, 2018 12:29 PM
*To:* ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com
*Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Georges:
Nice try, but Parvi.org is a default judgment, but is included, and is even explicitly labelled as such!
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
This was petty retaliation by WIPO, plain and simple. I'm sure you scored some points with them coming to their aid. Are folks too scared to speak out on my side, because they fear similar retaliation against them?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <4165880269> http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
George K
I think this is getting way into weeds, too personal and not productive. In your Pupa.com case, you filed a lawsuit in Ontario after the UDRP was filed. The defendant (who had filed the UDRP) apparently did not make an appearance in the lawsuit you filed. Your attorneys then filed for a default judgment that was granted -- particularly because nobody contested the matter. This is hardly a fully litigated case where a judge has submissions from both parties and then rules on the merits. I believe the idea behind the WIPO page is to have cases that were litigated by the parties (who both appeared) and where the court issued a decision. Just so you know, there are dozens of cases where parties have filed lawsuits against a party who registered a domain name and/or who won a UDRP that resulted in defaults. In my mind, those cases are not the type case that typically brings any real learning as to whether there has been a bad faith use or registration of a domain name. Like settlements, which often involve business decisions, sometimes parties default in lawsuits -- particularly, where, as in your case the costs could be high and the domain name may ultimately not be worth the effort. There are many entities that may make the business decision that since they have no connection to the forum (e.g., they do no business in the country in question and have no presence there), they don't want to spend the money and thus simply default. So, in my view, I would not read your case as being particularly meaningful as to the merits as there was no real litigation with briefs and evidence submitted by both sides. So while you might want your case highlighted for personal reasons, I don't really think it belongs on the page if the page is meant to dedicated to fully litigated cases where the parties both appeared and then resulted in a court decision (e.g. Barcelona.com).
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:55 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Hi folks,
I draw folks' attention to the page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com domain name. Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com case is the 2nd case in the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today.
No other changes were made.
I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal.
This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences, just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous.
This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <4165880269> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500 <4048156500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Thank you for these comments, Phil. We cannot allow the important work of this PDP to be further delayed or derailed by apparently personal prejudices or gripes. While every member of this PDP has the right and obligation to speak up regarding matters of concern to the PDP, once stated unless supported by others in the PDP we need to move on to the policy issues most of our members have volunteered to address in a serious, deliberative way. We have all sacrificed significant time and effort in support of our Charter, such irrational and unsupported detours simply must stop. Michael R. Graham From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 12:28 PM To: Phil@Winterfeldt.law; ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com; icann@leap.com Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants? I am quite concerned that this WG has again been diverted into an extended and divisive dialogue that is far removed from the policy issues we are required to address by our Charter. The only possible connection of the initiating incident to our work would be consideration, likely in phase 2 of our activities, of whether ICANN or another organization should attempt to compile and publicly display results of all follow-up litigation to UDRP and URS decisions that it is aware of. But the email that sparked the dialogue was not about policy proposals but about unsupported accusations of retaliation against the sender. Mr. Kirikos has identified one fact – that a court case filed after a UDRP decision involving the pupa.com domain had been removed from a WIPO webpage – and has extrapolated that into a charge that this action is evidence of “direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP”. Speaking only for myself, and recalling the adage that correlation is not causation, I am not inclined to leap to the conclusion that WIPO took this action as a retaliatory measure absent direct evidence of such motivation. Further, while the publication of court actions taken in the wake of UDRP decisions may have worthwhile accountability and transparency benefits – a subject that this WG can consider at the proper time – I personally question whether this “retaliation” has resulted in any harm to Mr. Kirikos and his company. I am most concerned by the accuser’s further extrapolation that the removal of the pupa.com case “calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious.” (Emphasis added) I apologize that it is not at all obvious to me what retaliation members might credibly face from WIPO if they support policy recommendations with which it has an official disagreement. As very few members of this WG have ever filed a judicial appeal of a UDRP decision that might be removed from a WIPO landing page, can this be a serious suggestion that WIPO would seek to sway UDRP panelists to be biased against any such WG member who had a UDRP adjudicated by WIPO, and that the panelist would follow that illicit suggestion? Brian Beckham participated in his first co-chair planning call, along with Kathy and me, this past Friday, in which we jointly and collegially agreed upon the work plan for this WG up to and through ICANN 62, and that plan was distributed to WG members on Tuesday. All three of us are mindful that it is the role of the co-chairs to administer the WG in a fair and efficient manner that permits its members to decide policy recommendations. Our work plan for this month is quite heavy and will lay the groundwork for serious and informed discussion of URS policy options this summer, and then for remaining issues in the fall. Yesterday and today members of the Data Sub-team held nearly four hours of discussion with the Analysis Group to set in final form the survey questions that will be dispatched shortly to provide us with additional data to guide our policy decisions. It is through such tedious but necessary sessions that our work is being advanced, through hard work and cooperation. I would suggest we direct our energies toward such constructive efforts and not get sidetracked. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phillip Marano Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 2:25 PM To: 'Nahitchevansky, Georges' <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com>>; George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants? I fail to see how any of these ad hominem allegations are actually relevant to the current substantive focus of this WG. If folks have grievances with particular individuals, then they should pursue the proper channels for complaints (we’ve already filed at least one and will likely now file yet another), rather than engage in numerous disruptive and distracting emails to the entire WG. Sincerely, Phil ________________________________ [https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b113a1d2a61b_WIPG_LogoMark.png]<https://www.winterfeldt.law/> Phillip V. Marano Senior Associate Winterfeldt IP Group 1200 17<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>th<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>, Ste 501<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> phil@winterfeldt.law<mailto:phil@winterfeldt.law> +1 202.759.5834 This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nahitchevansky, Georges Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 2:14 PM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants? As you would say, nice try George. The cases are vastly different. Your case has no significance. It is simply a default judgment and from what I can tell does not look to have had anywhere near the evidence submitted and arguments made as what was involved in Parvi. Personally I did not say Parvi belongs on the WIPO page. However, I can understand why that case would be on the page given that it touched on an issue and did something that no other court had done up to then. Your case has none of that and is simply a garden variety, run of the mill default. There is nothing that warrants it being on a page that concerns meaningful decisions. There are hundreds of other cases that involve defaults that are similarly situated to your case and are not that meaningful. Like I said, if you want to have a page that lists every domain name related lawsuit ever, then get ICANN to create such a page or, alternatively, hire some research assistants and put together a list of the hundreds of lawsuits out there and get it posted on ICANN or some other venue. From: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 1:54 PM To: Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants? Georges: My company's court case also had an actual oral hearing before the judge: http://www.loffs.com//pupa/Pupa-Order-March-11-2013.pdf<http://www.loffs.com/pupa/Pupa-Order-March-11-2013.pdf> "and on hearing the submissions of counsel" I know, because I have the legal bills for my law firm's attendance at court. My case also had an award of costs (there are no statutory damages for a case of this type in my jurisdiction). Why don't you take a look at the the judgment of the Parvi.org case that you stated belongs on that page: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/parvi-order.pdf and contrast it with the judgment for the Pupa.com case above. I'm glad that you agree with me that Parvi.org has significance (and belongs on that page). So does the Pupa.com case. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com>> wrote: George K Parvi.org is a very very different case from your case. There was an actual hearing in that case with evidence presented, arguments made etc. The case has significance because it was, as far as I know, the first case where a court awarded statutory damages to the domain owner for what the court found to be reverse domain name hijacking. Ask Paul K and John B to explain this to you. Your case had none of that and has had no significance anywhere near Parvi.org. It is like hundreds of other cases involving a run of the mill default. Again the WIPO page is meant to provide meaningful cases. From: icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com> Sent: June 7, 2018 12:29 PM To: ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants? Georges: Nice try, but Parvi.org<http://Parvi.org> is a default judgment, but is included, and is even explicitly labelled as such! http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/ This was petty retaliation by WIPO, plain and simple. I'm sure you scored some points with them coming to their aid. Are folks too scared to speak out on my side, because they fear similar retaliation against them? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:4165880269> http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com>> wrote:
George K
I think this is getting way into weeds, too personal and not productive. In your Pupa.com<http://Pupa.com> case, you filed a lawsuit in Ontario after the UDRP was filed. The defendant (who had filed the UDRP) apparently did not make an appearance in the lawsuit you filed. Your attorneys then filed for a default judgment that was granted -- particularly because nobody contested the matter. This is hardly a fully litigated case where a judge has submissions from both parties and then rules on the merits. I believe the idea behind the WIPO page is to have cases that were litigated by the parties (who both appeared) and where the court issued a decision. Just so you know, there are dozens of cases where parties have filed lawsuits against a party who registered a domain name and/or who won a UDRP that resulted in defaults. In my mind, those cases are not the type case that typically brings any real learning as to whether there has been a bad faith use or registration of a domain name. Like settlements, which often involve business decisions, sometimes parties default in lawsuits -- particularly, where, as in your case the costs could be high and the domain name may ultimately not be worth the effort. There are many entities that may make the business decision that since they have no connection to the forum (e.g., they do no business in the country in question and have no presence there), they don't want to spend the money and thus simply default. So, in my view, I would not read your case as being particularly meaningful as to the merits as there was no real litigation with briefs and evidence submitted by both sides. So while you might want your case highlighted for personal reasons, I don't really think it belongs on the page if the page is meant to dedicated to fully litigated cases where the parties both appeared and then resulted in a court decision (e.g. Barcelona.com<http://Barcelona.com>).
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:55 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Hi folks,
I draw folks' attention to the page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com<http://Pupa.com> domain name. Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com<http://Pupa.com> case is the 2nd case in the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today.
No other changes were made.
I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal.
This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences, just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous.
This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:4165880269> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500<tel:4048156500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Agree completely with Phil. This is ridiculous. George K., why so much focus on that damn WIPO page?! NAF and the other providers don't even have one at all. Maybe it should be a policy recommendation that records are kept and published re 'overturned' UDRP decisions. I would definitely support that. But it is not a policy requirement now; so WIPO can put whatever they want on their webpage. Nobody else in this group cares, as far as I can tell. Move on.... Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 11:25 AM, Phillip Marano <Phil@winterfeldt.law> wrote:
I fail to see how any of these ad hominem allegations are actually relevant to the current substantive focus of this WG.
If folks have grievances with particular individuals, then they should pursue the proper channels for complaints (we’ve already filed at least one and will likely now file yet another), rather than engage in numerous disruptive and distracting emails to the entire WG.
Sincerely,
Phil
------------------------------
[image: https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b1...] <https://www.winterfeldt.law/>
*Phillip V. Marano*
Senior Associate
Winterfeldt IP Group
1200 17th St NW, Ste 501
Washington, DC 20036
phil@winterfeldt.law
+1 202.759.5834
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Nahitchevansky, Georges *Sent:* Thursday, June 7, 2018 2:14 PM *To:* George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
As you would say, nice try George. The cases are vastly different. Your case has no significance. It is simply a default judgment and from what I can tell does not look to have had anywhere near the evidence submitted and arguments made as what was involved in Parvi. Personally I did not say Parvi belongs on the WIPO page. However, I can understand why that case would be on the page given that it touched on an issue and did something that no other court had done up to then. Your case has none of that and is simply a garden variety, run of the mill default. There is nothing that warrants it being on a page that concerns meaningful decisions. There are hundreds of other cases that involve defaults that are similarly situated to your case and are not that meaningful. Like I said, if you want to have a page that lists every domain name related lawsuit ever, then get ICANN to create such a page or, alternatively, hire some research assistants and put together a list of the hundreds of lawsuits out there and get it posted on ICANN or some other venue.
*From:* George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> *Sent:* Thursday, June 7, 2018 1:54 PM *To:* Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Georges:
My company's court case also had an actual oral hearing before the judge:
http://www.loffs.com//pupa/Pupa-Order-March-11-2013.pdf <http://www.loffs.com/pupa/Pupa-Order-March-11-2013.pdf>
"and on hearing the submissions of counsel"
I know, because I have the legal bills for my law firm's attendance at court. My case also had an award of costs (there are no statutory damages for a case of this type in my jurisdiction).
Why don't you take a look at the the judgment of the Parvi.org case that you stated belongs on that page:
http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/parvi-order.pdf
and contrast it with the judgment for the Pupa.com case above. I'm glad that you agree with me that Parvi.org has significance (and belongs on that page). So does the Pupa.com case.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges < ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
George K
Parvi.org is a very very different case from your case. There was an actual hearing in that case with evidence presented, arguments made etc. The case has significance because it was, as far as I know, the first case where a court awarded statutory damages to the domain owner for what the court found to be reverse domain name hijacking. Ask Paul K and John B to explain this to you. Your case had none of that and has had no significance anywhere near Parvi.org. It is like hundreds of other cases involving a run of the mill default. Again the WIPO page is meant to provide meaningful cases.
*From:* icann@leap.com
*Sent:* June 7, 2018 12:29 PM
*To:* ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com
*Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Georges:
Nice try, but Parvi.org is a default judgment, but is included, and is even explicitly labelled as such!
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
This was petty retaliation by WIPO, plain and simple. I'm sure you scored some points with them coming to their aid. Are folks too scared to speak out on my side, because they fear similar retaliation against them?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <4165880269> http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
George K
I think this is getting way into weeds, too personal and not productive. In your Pupa.com case, you filed a lawsuit in Ontario after the UDRP was filed. The defendant (who had filed the UDRP) apparently did not make an appearance in the lawsuit you filed. Your attorneys then filed for a default judgment that was granted -- particularly because nobody contested the matter. This is hardly a fully litigated case where a judge has submissions from both parties and then rules on the merits. I believe the idea behind the WIPO page is to have cases that were litigated by the parties (who both appeared) and where the court issued a decision. Just so you know, there are dozens of cases where parties have filed lawsuits against a party who registered a domain name and/or who won a UDRP that resulted in defaults. In my mind, those cases are not the type case that typically brings any real learning as to whether there has been a bad faith use or registration of a domain name. Like settlements, which often involve business decisions, sometimes parties default in lawsuits -- particularly, where, as in your case the costs could be high and the domain name may ultimately not be worth the effort. There are many entities that may make the business decision that since they have no connection to the forum (e.g., they do no business in the country in question and have no presence there), they don't want to spend the money and thus simply default. So, in my view, I would not read your case as being particularly meaningful as to the merits as there was no real litigation with briefs and evidence submitted by both sides. So while you might want your case highlighted for personal reasons, I don't really think it belongs on the page if the page is meant to dedicated to fully litigated cases where the parties both appeared and then resulted in a court decision (e.g. Barcelona.com).
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:55 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Hi folks,
I draw folks' attention to the page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com domain name. Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com case is the 2nd case in the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today.
No other changes were made.
I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal.
This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences, just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous.
This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <4165880269> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500 <4048156500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Georges: The WIPO page doesn't list the evidence and arguments of either case. So you don't know. All they list(ed) were the judgments, which were approximately the same length. Indeed, the hearing for the Parvi.org case wasn't on the merits -- as per the judgment, the hearing was only about **damages**. http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/parvi-order.pdf "The Court entered default in this case, and a hearing on damages was held September 14, 2012." Why doesn't anyone try to explain the timing of the removal? They simply "discovered" my case *after* I opposed Brian's candidacy for co-chair? Simply not credible. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
As you would say, nice try George. The cases are vastly different. Your case has no significance. It is simply a default judgment and from what I can tell does not look to have had anywhere near the evidence submitted and arguments made as what was involved in Parvi. Personally I did not say Parvi belongs on the WIPO page. However, I can understand why that case would be on the page given that it touched on an issue and did something that no other court had done up to then. Your case has none of that and is simply a garden variety, run of the mill default. There is nothing that warrants it being on a page that concerns meaningful decisions. There are hundreds of other cases that involve defaults that are similarly situated to your case and are not that meaningful. Like I said, if you want to have a page that lists every domain name related lawsuit ever, then get ICANN to create such a page or, alternatively, hire some research assistants and put together a list of the hundreds of lawsuits out there and get it posted on ICANN or some other venue.
From: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 1:54 PM To: Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Georges:
My company's court case also had an actual oral hearing before the judge:
http://www.loffs.com//pupa/Pupa-Order-March-11-2013.pdf
"and on hearing the submissions of counsel"
I know, because I have the legal bills for my law firm's attendance at court. My case also had an award of costs (there are no statutory damages for a case of this type in my jurisdiction).
Why don't you take a look at the the judgment of the Parvi.org case that you stated belongs on that page:
http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/parvi-order.pdf
and contrast it with the judgment for the Pupa.com case above. I'm glad that you agree with me that Parvi.org has significance (and belongs on that page). So does the Pupa.com case.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
George K
Parvi.org is a very very different case from your case. There was an actual hearing in that case with evidence presented, arguments made etc. The case has significance because it was, as far as I know, the first case where a court awarded statutory damages to the domain owner for what the court found to be reverse domain name hijacking. Ask Paul K and John B to explain this to you. Your case had none of that and has had no significance anywhere near Parvi.org. It is like hundreds of other cases involving a run of the mill default. Again the WIPO page is meant to provide meaningful cases.
From: icann@leap.com
Sent: June 7, 2018 12:29 PM
To: ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Georges:
Nice try, but Parvi.org is a default judgment, but is included, and is even explicitly labelled as such!
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
This was petty retaliation by WIPO, plain and simple. I'm sure you scored some points with them coming to their aid. Are folks too scared to speak out on my side, because they fear similar retaliation against them?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
George K
I think this is getting way into weeds, too personal and not productive. In your Pupa.com case, you filed a lawsuit in Ontario after the UDRP was filed. The defendant (who had filed the UDRP) apparently did not make an appearance in the lawsuit you filed. Your attorneys then filed for a default judgment that was granted -- particularly because nobody contested the matter. This is hardly a fully litigated case where a judge has submissions from both parties and then rules on the merits. I believe the idea behind the WIPO page is to have cases that were litigated by the parties (who both appeared) and where the court issued a decision. Just so you know, there are dozens of cases where parties have filed lawsuits against a party who registered a domain name and/or who won a UDRP that resulted in defaults. In my mind, those cases are not the type case that typically brings any real learning as to whether there has been a bad faith use or registration of a domain name. Like settlements, which often involve business decisions, sometimes parties default in lawsuits -- particularly, where, as in your case the costs could be high and the domain name may ultimately not be worth the effort. There are many entities that may make the business decision that since they have no connection to the forum (e.g., they do no business in the country in question and have no presence there), they don't want to spend the money and thus simply default. So, in my view, I would not read your case as being particularly meaningful as to the merits as there was no real litigation with briefs and evidence submitted by both sides. So while you might want your case highlighted for personal reasons, I don't really think it belongs on the page if the page is meant to dedicated to fully litigated cases where the parties both appeared and then resulted in a court decision (e.g. Barcelona.com).
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:55 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Hi folks,
I draw folks' attention to the page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com domain name. Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com case is the 2nd case in the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today.
No other changes were made.
I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal.
This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences, just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous.
This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Agree with Georges N. But I'm also mystified why having a case that you were involved in listed with a bunch of other cases on the WIPO website is a benefit to you - or more to the point why not having it on there is damaging and "retaliation". Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nahitchevansky, Georges Sent: 07 June 2018 18:38 To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants? George K Parvi.org is a very very different case from your case. There was an actual hearing in that case with evidence presented, arguments made etc. The case has significance because it was, as far as I know, the first case where a court awarded statutory damages to the domain owner for what the court found to be reverse domain name hijacking. Ask Paul K and John B to explain this to you. Your case had none of that and has had no significance anywhere near Parvi.org. It is like hundreds of other cases involving a run of the mill default. Again the WIPO page is meant to provide meaningful cases. From: icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com> Sent: June 7, 2018 12:29 PM To: ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants? Georges: Nice try, but Parvi.org<http://Parvi.org> is a default judgment, but is included, and is even explicitly labelled as such! http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/ This was petty retaliation by WIPO, plain and simple. I'm sure you scored some points with them coming to their aid. Are folks too scared to speak out on my side, because they fear similar retaliation against them? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:4165880269> http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com>> wrote:
George K
I think this is getting way into weeds, too personal and not productive. In your Pupa.com<http://Pupa.com> case, you filed a lawsuit in Ontario after the UDRP was filed. The defendant (who had filed the UDRP) apparently did not make an appearance in the lawsuit you filed. Your attorneys then filed for a default judgment that was granted -- particularly because nobody contested the matter. This is hardly a fully litigated case where a judge has submissions from both parties and then rules on the merits. I believe the idea behind the WIPO page is to have cases that were litigated by the parties (who both appeared) and where the court issued a decision. Just so you know, there are dozens of cases where parties have filed lawsuits against a party who registered a domain name and/or who won a UDRP that resulted in defaults. In my mind, those cases are not the type case that typically brings any real learning as to whether there has been a bad faith use or registration of a domain name. Like settlements, which often involve business decisions, sometimes parties default in lawsuits -- particularly, where, as in your case the costs could be high and the domain name may ultimately not be worth the effort. There are many entities that may make the business decision that since they have no connection to the forum (e.g., they do no business in the country in question and have no presence there), they don't want to spend the money and thus simply default. So, in my view, I would not read your case as being particularly meaningful as to the merits as there was no real litigation with briefs and evidence submitted by both sides. So while you might want your case highlighted for personal reasons, I don't really think it belongs on the page if the page is meant to dedicated to fully litigated cases where the parties both appeared and then resulted in a court decision (e.g. Barcelona.com<http://Barcelona.com>).
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:55 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Hi folks,
I draw folks' attention to the page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com<http://Pupa.com> domain name. Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com<http://Pupa.com> case is the 2nd case in the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today.
No other changes were made.
I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal.
This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences, just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous.
This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269<tel:4165880269> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500<tel:4048156500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Susan: It shows the ultimate outcome of the dispute, which is a very important benefit (one that WIPO seeks to deny via their retaliation). Furthermore, it's the court cases challenging UDRP disputes (which are not being published by WIPO) that help ensure accountability of the procedure. There's an important accountability and transparency benefit from having those court cases published and publicized. Let's suppose Jane Smith accuses John Jones of a crime. That generate a lot of adverse publicity for John (as my company's case did, at the time the UDRP was filed -- it's an accusation of cybersquatting, after all). If John later has a favourable outcome (the case is dismissed, etc.) , John certainly deserves that the public be made aware of that fact, to repair and defend his reputation. And maybe Jane will be held accountable too, for making the accusation that turned out to not be valid. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:53 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
Agree with Georges N.
But I’m also mystified why having a case that you were involved in listed with a bunch of other cases on the WIPO website is a benefit to you – or more to the point why not having it on there is damaging and “retaliation”.
*Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy* | *Valideus Ltd * E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Nahitchevansky, Georges *Sent:* 07 June 2018 18:38 *To:* George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
*Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
George K
Parvi.org is a very very different case from your case. There was an actual hearing in that case with evidence presented, arguments made etc. The case has significance because it was, as far as I know, the first case where a court awarded statutory damages to the domain owner for what the court found to be reverse domain name hijacking. Ask Paul K and John B to explain this to you. Your case had none of that and has had no significance anywhere near Parvi.org. It is like hundreds of other cases involving a run of the mill default. Again the WIPO page is meant to provide meaningful cases.
*From:* icann@leap.com
*Sent:* June 7, 2018 12:29 PM
*To:* ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com
*Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Georges:
Nice try, but Parvi.org is a default judgment, but is included, and is even explicitly labelled as such!
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
This was petty retaliation by WIPO, plain and simple. I'm sure you scored some points with them coming to their aid. Are folks too scared to speak out on my side, because they fear similar retaliation against them?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <4165880269> http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
George K
I think this is getting way into weeds, too personal and not productive. In your Pupa.com case, you filed a lawsuit in Ontario after the UDRP was filed. The defendant (who had filed the UDRP) apparently did not make an appearance in the lawsuit you filed. Your attorneys then filed for a default judgment that was granted -- particularly because nobody contested the matter. This is hardly a fully litigated case where a judge has submissions from both parties and then rules on the merits. I believe the idea behind the WIPO page is to have cases that were litigated by the parties (who both appeared) and where the court issued a decision. Just so you know, there are dozens of cases where parties have filed lawsuits against a party who registered a domain name and/or who won a UDRP that resulted in defaults. In my mind, those cases are not the type case that typically brings any real learning as to whether there has been a bad faith use or registration of a domain name. Like settlements, which often involve business decisions, sometimes parties default in lawsuits -- particularly, where, as in your case the costs could be high and the domain name may ultimately not be worth the effort. There are many entities that may make the business decision that since they have no connection to the forum (e.g., they do no business in the country in question and have no presence there), they don't want to spend the money and thus simply default. So, in my view, I would not read your case as being particularly meaningful as to the merits as there was no real litigation with briefs and evidence submitted by both sides. So while you might want your case highlighted for personal reasons, I don't really think it belongs on the page if the page is meant to dedicated to fully litigated cases where the parties both appeared and then resulted in a court decision (e.g. Barcelona.com).
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:55 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Hi folks,
I draw folks' attention to the page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com domain name. Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com case is the 2nd case in the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today.
No other changes were made.
I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal.
This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences, just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous.
This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <4165880269> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500 <4048156500>, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Georges, In Parvi, the defendant (City of Paris) did not appear although it was served at great expense. The arguments and filings are those required to prove a case. The same analysis should apply to any default case in which the allegations are taken as true BUT as to which the court requires that evidence be submitted. In either case it is a valid judgment and the findings in the judgment are equally valid. Paul Keating From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Georges Nahitchevansky <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> Date: Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 7:38 PM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
George K
Parvi.org is a very very different case from your case. There was an actual hearing in that case with evidence presented, arguments made etc. The case has significance because it was, as far as I know, the first case where a court awarded statutory damages to the domain owner for what the court found to be reverse domain name hijacking. Ask Paul K and John B to explain this to you. Your case had none of that and has had no significance anywhere near Parvi.org. It is like hundreds of other cases involving a run of the mill default. Again the WIPO page is meant to provide meaningful cases.
From: icann@leap.com Sent: June 7, 2018 12:29 PM To: ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Georges:
Nice try, but Parvi.org <http://Parvi.org> is a default judgment, but is included, and is even explicitly labelled as such!
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
This was petty retaliation by WIPO, plain and simple. I'm sure you scored some points with them coming to their aid. Are folks too scared to speak out on my side, because they fear similar retaliation against them?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <tel:4165880269> http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
George K
I think this is getting way into weeds, too personal and not productive. In your Pupa.com <http://Pupa.com> case, you filed a lawsuit in Ontario after the UDRP was filed. The defendant (who had filed the UDRP) apparently did not make an appearance in the lawsuit you filed. Your attorneys then filed for a default judgment that was granted -- particularly because nobody contested the matter. This is hardly a fully litigated case where a judge has submissions from both parties and then rules on the merits. I believe the idea behind the WIPO page is to have cases that were litigated by the parties (who both appeared) and where the court issued a decision. Just so you know, there are dozens of cases where parties have filed lawsuits against a party who registered a domain name and/or who won a UDRP that resulted in defaults. In my mind, those cases are not the type case that typically brings any real learning as to whether there has been a bad faith use or registration of a domain name. Like settlements, which often involve business decisions, sometimes parties default in lawsuits -- particularly, where, as in your case the costs could be high and the domain name may ultimately not be worth the effort. There are many entities that may make the business decision that since they have no connection to the forum (e.g., they do no business in the country in question and have no presence there), they don't want to spend the money and thus simply default. So, in my view, I would not read your case as being particularly meaningful as to the merits as there was no real litigation with briefs and evidence submitted by both sides. So while you might want your case highlighted for personal reasons, I don't really think it belongs on the page if the page is meant to dedicated to fully litigated cases where the parties both appeared and then resulted in a court decision (e.g. Barcelona.com <http://Barcelona.com> ).
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:55 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Hi folks,
I draw folks' attention to the page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com <http://Pupa.com> domain name. Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com <http://Pupa.com> case is the 2nd case in the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today.
No other changes were made.
I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal.
This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences, just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous.
This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <tel:4165880269> http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500 <tel:4048156500> , and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Depends. Maybe the other party chose not to participate as it knew it had no chance. Or it did not want to risk the costs. Or it never knew. Speculating on the reasons why a party did not appear is futile. All that counts is that the UDRP decision was not upheld. Volker Am 07.06.2018 um 18:23 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges:
George K
I think this is getting way into weeds, too personal and not productive. In your Pupa.com case, you filed a lawsuit in Ontario after the UDRP was filed. The defendant (who had filed the UDRP) apparently did not make an appearance in the lawsuit you filed. Your attorneys then filed for a default judgment that was granted -- particularly because nobody contested the matter. This is hardly a fully litigated case where a judge has submissions from both parties and then rules on the merits. I believe the idea behind the WIPO page is to have cases that were litigated by the parties (who both appeared) and where the court issued a decision. Just so you know, there are dozens of cases where parties have filed lawsuits against a party who registered a domain name and/or who won a UDRP that resulted in defaults. In my mind, those cases are not the type case that typically brings any real learning as to whether there has been a bad faith use or registration of a domain name. Like settle ments, which often involve business decisions, sometimes parties default in lawsuits -- particularly, where, as in your case the costs could be high and the domain name may ultimately not be worth the effort. There are many entities that may make the business decision that since they have no connection to the forum (e.g., they do no business in the country in question and have no presence there), they don't want to spend the money and thus simply default. So, in my view, I would not read your case as being particularly meaningful as to the merits as there was no real litigation with briefs and evidence submitted by both sides. So while you might want your case highlighted for personal reasons, I don't really think it belongs on the page if the page is meant to dedicated to fully litigated cases where the parties both appeared and then resulted in a court decision (e.g. Barcelona.com).
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:55 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Hi folks,
I draw folks' attention to the page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com domain name. Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com case is the 2nd case in the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today.
No other changes were made.
I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal.
This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences, just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous.
This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Could it simply be that the <pupa.com> dispute was mistakenly listed on the WIPO page in the first place and, now that the error was noticed (perhaps as a result of recent attention being given to this page), it has been properly removed? The WIPO page states (and stated) that it "lists select court cases known to have been issued following a UDRP decision." However, it appears as if the <pupa.com> case never resulted in a UDRP decision and instead was terminated. See http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/case.jsp?case_id=23622 Doug -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 12:30 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants? Depends. Maybe the other party chose not to participate as it knew it had no chance. Or it did not want to risk the costs. Or it never knew. Speculating on the reasons why a party did not appear is futile. All that counts is that the UDRP decision was not upheld. Volker Am 07.06.2018 um 18:23 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges:
George K
I think this is getting way into weeds, too personal and not productive. In your Pupa.com case, you filed a lawsuit in Ontario after the UDRP was filed. The defendant (who had filed the UDRP) apparently did not make an appearance in the lawsuit you filed. Your attorneys then filed for a default judgment that was granted -- particularly because nobody contested the matter. This is hardly a fully litigated case where a judge has submissions from both parties and then rules on the merits. I believe the idea behind the WIPO page is to have cases that were litigated by the parties (who both appeared) and where the court issued a decision. Just so you know, there are dozens of cases where parties have filed lawsuits against a party who registered a domain name and/or who won a UDRP that resulted in defaults. In my mind, those cases are not the type case that typically brings any real learning as to whether there has been a bad faith use or registration of a domain name. Like settle ments, which often involve business decisions, sometimes parties default in lawsuits -- particularly, where, as in your case the costs could be high and the domain name may ultimately not be worth the effort. There are many entities that may make the business decision that since they have no connection to the forum (e.g., they do no business in the country in question and have no presence there), they don't want to spend the money and thus simply default. So, in my view, I would not read your case as being particularly meaningful as to the merits as there was no real litigation with briefs and evidence submitted by both sides. So while you might want your case highlighted for personal reasons, I don't really think it belongs on the page if the page is meant to dedicated to fully litigated cases where the parties both appeared and then resulted in a court decision (e.g. Barcelona.com).
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:55 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Hi folks,
I draw folks' attention to the page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com domain name. Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com case is the 2nd case in the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today.
No other changes were made.
I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal.
This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences, just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous.
This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Doug, Nice try again, but like Georges, you're not correct. See: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/ which lists the Renner.com case, which was also terminated. http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/case.jsp?case_id=15703 I obviously checked this *before* I brought this matter to the mailing list (that's why my responses are so quick, as I've anticipated every reasonable explanation). Recall, WIPO had already modified that page to remove the LawSociety.com case, in order to attempt to justify excluding a number of other cases that belonged on that page. This is blatant retaliation, plain and simple. WIPO should be ashamed of themselves. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Doug Isenberg <Doug@giga.law> wrote:
Could it simply be that the <pupa.com> dispute was mistakenly listed on the WIPO page in the first place and, now that the error was noticed (perhaps as a result of recent attention being given to this page), it has been properly removed? The WIPO page states (and stated) that it "lists select court cases known to have been issued following a UDRP decision." However, it appears as if the <pupa.com> case never resulted in a UDRP decision and instead was terminated. See http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/case.jsp?case_id=23622
Doug
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 12:30 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Depends. Maybe the other party chose not to participate as it knew it had no chance. Or it did not want to risk the costs. Or it never knew. Speculating on the reasons why a party did not appear is futile. All that counts is that the UDRP decision was not upheld.
Volker
Am 07.06.2018 um 18:23 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges:
George K
I think this is getting way into weeds, too personal and not productive. In your Pupa.com case, you filed a lawsuit in Ontario after the UDRP was filed. The defendant (who had filed the UDRP) apparently did not make an appearance in the lawsuit you filed. Your attorneys then filed for a default judgment that was granted -- particularly because nobody contested the matter. This is hardly a fully litigated case where a judge has submissions from both parties and then rules on the merits. I believe the idea behind the WIPO page is to have cases that were litigated by the parties (who both appeared) and where the court issued a decision. Just so you know, there are dozens of cases where parties have filed lawsuits against a party who registered a domain name and/or who won a UDRP that resulted in defaults. In my mind, those cases are not the type case that typically brings any real learning as to whether there has been a bad faith use or registration of a domain name. Like settle ments, which often involve business decisions, sometimes parties default in lawsuits -- particularly, where, as in your case the costs could be high and the domain name may ultimately not be worth the effort. There are many entities that may make the business decision that since they have no connection to the forum (e.g., they do no business in the country in question and have no presence there), they don't want to spend the money and thus simply default. So, in my view, I would not read your case as being particularly meaningful as to the merits as there was no real litigation with briefs and evidence submitted by both sides. So while you might want your case highlighted for personal reasons, I don't really think it belongs on the page if the page is meant to dedicated to fully litigated cases where the parties both appeared and then resulted in a court decision (e.g. Barcelona.com).
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:55 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Hi folks,
I draw folks' attention to the page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com domain name. Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com case is the 2nd case in the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today.
No other changes were made.
I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal.
This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences, just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous.
This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
I'm not seeking a "nice try," I'm simply trying to understand. It sure seems that terminated cases don't belong on a page that refers to those involving a "UDRP decision," so perhaps the <renner.com> reference should be removed as well. Doug -----Original Message----- From: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 1:15 PM To: Doug@giga.law Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants? Doug, Nice try again, but like Georges, you're not correct. See: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/ which lists the Renner.com case, which was also terminated. http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/case.jsp?case_id=15703 I obviously checked this *before* I brought this matter to the mailing list (that's why my responses are so quick, as I've anticipated every reasonable explanation). Recall, WIPO had already modified that page to remove the LawSociety.com case, in order to attempt to justify excluding a number of other cases that belonged on that page. This is blatant retaliation, plain and simple. WIPO should be ashamed of themselves. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Doug Isenberg <Doug@giga.law> wrote:
Could it simply be that the <pupa.com> dispute was mistakenly listed on the WIPO page in the first place and, now that the error was noticed (perhaps as a result of recent attention being given to this page), it has been properly removed? The WIPO page states (and stated) that it "lists select court cases known to have been issued following a UDRP decision." However, it appears as if the <pupa.com> case never resulted in a UDRP decision and instead was terminated. See http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/case.jsp?case_id=23622
Doug
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 12:30 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Depends. Maybe the other party chose not to participate as it knew it had no chance. Or it did not want to risk the costs. Or it never knew. Speculating on the reasons why a party did not appear is futile. All that counts is that the UDRP decision was not upheld.
Volker
Am 07.06.2018 um 18:23 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges:
George K
I think this is getting way into weeds, too personal and not productive. In your Pupa.com case, you filed a lawsuit in Ontario after the UDRP was filed. The defendant (who had filed the UDRP) apparently did not make an appearance in the lawsuit you filed. Your attorneys then filed for a default judgment that was granted -- particularly because nobody contested the matter. This is hardly a fully litigated case where a judge has submissions from both parties and then rules on the merits. I believe the idea behind the WIPO page is to have cases that were litigated by the parties (who both appeared) and where the court issued a decision. Just so you know, there are dozens of cases where parties have filed lawsuits against a party who registered a domain name and/or who won a UDRP that resulted in defaults. In my mind, those cases are not the type case that typically brings any real learning as to whether there has been a bad faith use or registration of a domain name. Like settle ments, which often involve business decisions, sometimes parties default in lawsuits -- particularly, where, as in your case the costs could be high and the domain name may ultimately not be worth the effort. There are many entities that may make the business decision that since they have no connection to the forum (e.g., they do no business in the country in question and have no presence there), they don't want to spend the money and thus simply default. So, in my view, I would not read your case as being particularly meaningful as to the merits as there was no real litigation with briefs and evidence submitted by both sides. So while you might want your case highlighted for personal reasons, I don't really think it belongs on the page if the page is meant to dedicated to fully litigated cases where the parties both appeared and then resulted in a court decision (e.g. Barcelona.com).
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:55 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Hi folks,
I draw folks' attention to the page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com domain name. Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com case is the 2nd case in the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today.
No other changes were made.
I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal.
This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences, just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous.
This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Doug, A decision by a panel to terminate is still a "decision". Take a look at the page: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/case.jsp?case_id=15703 *WIPO Case Number* D2009-0637 *Domain name(s)* renner.com *Complainant* Lojas Renner S.A. *Panelist *Turner, Jonathan *Decision* Terminated Do you see the bolded word right before "Terminated" --- let me state the obvious, it says "Decision". Furthermore, take a look at the *timing* of when my company's case was removed! Does anyone actually credibly believe it wasn't retaliation against me? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Doug Isenberg <Doug@giga.law> wrote:
I'm not seeking a "nice try," I'm simply trying to understand. It sure seems that terminated cases don't belong on a page that refers to those involving a "UDRP decision," so perhaps the <renner.com> reference should be removed as well.
Doug
-----Original Message----- From: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 1:15 PM To: Doug@giga.law Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Doug,
Nice try again, but like Georges, you're not correct. See:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
which lists the Renner.com case, which was also terminated.
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/case.jsp?case_id=15703
I obviously checked this *before* I brought this matter to the mailing list (that's why my responses are so quick, as I've anticipated every reasonable explanation).
Recall, WIPO had already modified that page to remove the LawSociety.com case, in order to attempt to justify excluding a number of other cases that belonged on that page.
This is blatant retaliation, plain and simple. WIPO should be ashamed of themselves.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Doug Isenberg <Doug@giga.law> wrote:
Could it simply be that the <pupa.com> dispute was mistakenly listed on the WIPO page in the first place and, now that the error was noticed (perhaps as a result of recent attention being given to this page), it has been properly removed? The WIPO page states (and stated) that it "lists select court cases known to have been issued following a UDRP decision." However, it appears as if the <pupa.com> case never resulted in a UDRP decision and instead was terminated. See http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/case.jsp?case_id=23622
Doug
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Volker Greimann Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 12:30 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Depends. Maybe the other party chose not to participate as it knew it had no chance. Or it did not want to risk the costs. Or it never knew. Speculating on the reasons why a party did not appear is futile. All that counts is that the UDRP decision was not upheld.
Volker
Am 07.06.2018 um 18:23 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges:
George K
I think this is getting way into weeds, too personal and not productive. In your Pupa.com case, you filed a lawsuit in Ontario after the UDRP was filed. The defendant (who had filed the UDRP) apparently did not make an appearance in the lawsuit you filed. Your attorneys then filed for a default judgment that was granted -- particularly because nobody contested the matter. This is hardly a fully litigated case where a judge has submissions from both parties and then rules on the merits. I believe the idea behind the WIPO page is to have cases that were litigated by the parties (who both appeared) and where the court issued a decision. Just so you know, there are dozens of cases where parties have filed lawsuits against a party who registered a domain name and/or who won a UDRP that resulted in defaults. In my mind, those cases are not the type case that typically brings any real learning as to whether there has been a bad faith use or registration of a domain name. Like settle ments, which often involve business decisions, sometimes parties default in lawsuits -- particularly, where, as in your case the costs could be high and the domain name may ultimately not be worth the effort. There are many entities that may make the business decision that since they have no connection to the forum (e.g., they do no business in the country in question and have no presence there), they don't want to spend the money and thus simply default. So, in my view, I would not read your case as being particularly meaningful as to the merits as there was no real litigation with briefs and evidence submitted by both sides. So while you might want your case highlighted for personal reasons, I don't really think it belongs on the page if the page is meant to dedicated to fully litigated cases where the parties both appeared and then resulted in a court decision (e.g. Barcelona.com).
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:55 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?
Hi folks,
I draw folks' attention to the page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com domain name. Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com case is the 2nd case in the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today.
No other changes were made.
I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal.
This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences, just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous.
This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO is obvious.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
--------------------------------------------
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best regards,
Volker A. Greimann - legal department -
Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net
Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems
CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu
This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
participants (11)
-
Corwin, Philip -
Cyntia King -
Doug Isenberg -
George Kirikos -
Michael Graham (ELCA) -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Nahitchevansky, Georges -
Paul Keating -
Phillip Marano -
Susan Payne -
Volker Greimann