<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Jon:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Thanks you for providing this summation of your consultation with several other IGOs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Let me comment on some of your reply.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:#1F497D">“</span></i><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">As we have discussed at length, the mutual jurisdiction provision of the UDRP
<b>in fact prevents</b> IGOs from using the UDRP.” (Emphasis added)<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">This claim once again illustrates an unfortunate tendency of IGO representatives to overstate their case. In actual fact, the mutual jurisdiction clause of the UDRP may deter some IGOs from using
that CRP, but in no way prevents such use. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">To illustrate, the WG identified numerous instances in which IGOs – including the World Bank in multiple filings -- had utilized the UDRP. As stated on page 79 of the Initial Report:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#1F497D">Indeed, several IGOs—including the International Mobile Satellite Organization (INMARSAT), the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), and the Bank for International
Settlement (BFIS)—have prevailed in UDRP complaints.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">The footnote related to that sentence reads:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#1F497D">Respectively, in International Mobile Satellite Organisation and Inmarsat Ventures Limited (formerly known as Inmarsat Holdings Limited) v. Domains, EntreDomains Inc. and Brian Evans,
D2000-1339 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000); International Bank For Reconstruction and Development d/b/a The World Bank v. Yoo Jin Sohn, D2002-0222 (WIPO May 7, 2002); and Bank for International Settlements v. BFIS, D2003-0984 (WIPO March 1, 2004), Bank for International
Settlements v. BIS, D2003-0986 (WIPO March 2, 2004), Bank for International Settlements v. James Elliott, D2003-0987 (WIPO March 3, 2004), Bank for International Settlements v. G.I Joe, D2004-0570 (WIPO (Sept. 27, 2004), Bank for International Settlements
v. BIS, D2004-0571 (WIPO Oct. 1, 2004), and Bank for International Settlements v. Fortune Nwaiwu, D2004-0575 (WIPO Oct. 1, 2004). A few other matters are catalogued in the Index of WIPO UDRP Panel Decisions, http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/legalindex/,
as involving IGOs. In one, involving the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), a decentralized agency of the European Union, the complaint was denied due to its failure to establish rights to marks or services. European Monitoring
Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) v. Virtual Clicks / Registrant ID:CR36884430, Registration Private Domains by Proxy, Inc., D2010-0475 (WIPO July 7, 2010). In another, involving UNITAID, an IGO hosted by the World Health Organization (WHO), trademark
rights were assigned by a fiduciary agreement to a private enterprise, which registered them on behalf of the WHO and UNITAID. Lenz & Staehelin Ltd v. Christopher Mikkelsen, D2012-1922 (WIPO Jan. 8, 2013).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">In addition, while not cited in the Initial report, the WG also found instances in which IGOs (again including the World Bank) waived immunity and initiated litigation in national courts; see
<a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2015-March/000302.html">
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2015-March/000302.html</a> .<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">“In addition, our past experiences within ICANN make us deeply concerned that such an exercise risks being manipulated against IGOs’ interests, from the formulation of the research question, the
selection of the expert and the choice of jurisdictions to the potential cherry-picking of language from the expert’s conclusions once her report is released.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">I utterly reject the implication that our WG in any way “manipulated” the legal research undertaken by Prof. Swaine. He was selected from a list of potential experts prepared by ICANN Policy Staff
and was selected because of his availability to do the work within the desired timeframe and willingness to undertake extensive research and writing for a relatively small sum. The four questions posed to him (reproduced below) were neutral and dictated no
predetermined outcome, and were carefully formulated with the input and assistance of ICANN policy staff. The choice of jurisdictions surveyed was entirely of his choosing. And our Initial Report, while containing extensive discussion and analysis of his findings,
in no way involved “cherry-picking” of his language. Indeed, the charge is unsupported given that the entire legal memo is included in our report and entities filing comments were free to engage in their own cherry-picking in citing passages favourable to
their position while ignoring those that undermined it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">Finally, in regard to the four cited IGO expectations if a new legal analysis is undertaken, I agree that IGOs should have input into (but not control over) its design – just as IGOs would have had
into the formulation of the questions posed to Prof. Swaine had any IGOs chosen to join our WG as members, something they declined to do despite repeated outreach. I remain incredulous that any specific legal basis for the protections of IGO names and acronyms,
other than trademark law and Article 6ter of the Paris Convention, will be uncovered by such an undertaking as no IGO or other party has cited such law throughout the time our WG has been operating. I again express extreme concern about the prospect of ICANN
creating non-judicial alternatives for dispute resolution in regard to any type of law other than trademark law, as this opens the door to ICANN becoming a super-legislature for the broad sweep of laws that may be implicated by specific uses of the DNS. Finally,
if such a new legal inquiry is undertaken I believe it should focus solely upon statutes creating an individual right to litigate, as it would be entirely unsuitable for ICANN to create a CRP in regard to a legal right for which there is no corresponding authroity
to initiate litigation but only regulatory enforcement. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">Based upon your desire for a broad survey of national jurisdictions, and our own experience working with with Prof. Swaine, I would anticipate that receipt of a final version the relevant legal
memo would occur at least six months to a year following the time expended on identification of a suitable expert and entering into a contract for the research.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">If this discussion group chooses to authorize a new inquiry by another legal expert our WG will seriously consider whether our Final Report’s release should be delayed to await its results. In the
interim, we will continue to discuss the comments received on the Initial Report and move forward to drafting a Final version.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">Philip<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="color:#1F497D">The questions posed by the IGO CRP WG to Prof. Edward Swaine:<o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">1. In relation to the requirement to select a “Mutual Jurisdiction” in the UDRP or URS context, is a complaining IGO entitled to immunity in connection with judicial action brought by a domain name registrant
arising from an asserted conflict between the IGO’s and the domain name registrant’s rights – even when the IGO has initiated the dispute under a dispute resolution process that is in addition to, and not a replacement for, the registrant’s legal rights under
its applicable national law? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">2. Are there procedural or other mechanisms which an IGO may use to escape or avoid becoming subject to judicial action brought by a domain name registrant arising from an asserted conflict between the IGO’s
and the registrant’s rights? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">3. To the best of your knowledge, how do IGOs generally handle standard commercial contractual clauses concerning submission to a particular jurisdiction or dispute resolution method?
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">4. Are there additional principles, nuances or other relevant information (including to your knowledge general principles of law which have been applied by States) that are relevant to our work to find a solution
and conclusion on domain name disputes related to IGOs?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Virtualaw LLC</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">1155 F Street, NW</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Suite 1050</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Washington, DC 20004</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-559-8597/Direct</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-559-8750/Fax</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">202-255-6172/Cell</span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:navy"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">Twitter: @VlawDC</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:navy">"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey</span></i></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org [mailto:discussion-igo-rc-bounces@icann.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Jonathan.PASSARO@oecd.org<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 03, 2017 4:49 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> discussion-igo-rc@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Discussion-igo-rc] External legal advice on 6ter<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Dear Bruce,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">My apologies for the delay since my last email, as it took me a few days to consult with the other members of the “core group” of IGOs (UN, UPU, WHO, WIPO).
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">First, allow me to take the opportunity to correct a point in your last email, sent on 30 April at 02:14 CEST. You stated that “<i>Where IGOs have a trademark, they can take advantage of the existing UDRP</i>.” As we
have discussed at length, the mutual jurisdiction provision of the UDRP in fact prevents IGOs from using the UDRP. For more in-depth explanations regarding why the mutual jurisdiction provision is incompatible with the immunities we enjoy as intergovernmental
organisations, I invite you to consult the comments numerous IGOs provided on this point in the context of the ongoing PDP (including
<i>e.g.</i> <a href="https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/pdfQMY4Efq7Aa.pdf">
OECD</a>, <a href="https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/pdf28tKc4pChA.pdf">
UN</a>, <a href="https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/pdfzzHOSpXFGP.pdf">
World Bank</a>).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Second, regarding the consultation of a legal expert, my IGO colleagues share the OECD’s concern that such an exercise will significantly prolong what has already been an extensive and resource-intensive process. In addition,
our past experiences within ICANN make us deeply concerned that such an exercise risks being manipulated against IGOs’ interests, from the formulation of the research question, the selection of the expert and the choice of jurisdictions to the potential cherry-picking
of language from the expert’s conclusions once her report is released. We are grateful that you are trying to start a new, less contentious chapter in this saga but hope that you understand why we are reticent to embark down this path.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">In that regard, if you do decide to proceed, we would naturally expect that the IGOs would be involved in (1) the formulation of the research question(s); (2) the selection of the expert (3) the terms of reference guiding
the expert’s work; and (4) the choice of jurisdictions (please note already that a survey of five jurisdictions out of the 177 States Parties to the Paris Convention seems unlikely to give any kind of accurate idea about the scope of mechanisms States use
to protect IGO acronyms).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Jon<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="567" style="width:425.25pt">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="71" nowrap="" valign="top" style="width:53.3pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.oecd.org/"><span style="color:windowtext;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB;text-decoration:none"><img border="0" width="167" height="71" id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.png@01D2C402.74DD3B00" alt="logo_mail_uk"></span></a><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td nowrap="" valign="bottom" style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Jonathan Passaro</span></b><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><br>
</span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Legal Adviser<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Directorate for Legal Affairs</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="71" nowrap="" style="width:53.3pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 0in"></td>
<td nowrap="" valign="top" style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="FR" style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">2, rue André
</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#727272;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Pascal</span><span lang="FR" style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:gray;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"> - 75775 Paris
Cedex 16 <br>
Tel: +33 1 45 24 14 73<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">
<hr size="1" width="100%" noshade="" style="color:#A0A0A0" align="center">
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">No virus found in this message.<br>
Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com/email-signature">www.avg.com</a><br>
Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4769/14347 - Release Date: 04/19/17<br>
Internal Virus Database is out of date.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>