[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: [council] Board reply letter on IGO/RC issues and proposal on IGO acronyms protection from the IGO "small group"

[George Kirikos]

My last post of the day (I promise). I think it's also important to
note who exactly thinks that they are "above the law". One of those
IGOs is WIPO, and I would encourage everyone to read about their DNA
scandal at:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140709/11070027824/report-that-wipo-lawyer-tried-to-censor-about-wipo-bosss-abuses-republished.shtml

and in particular the accompanying PDF -- embedded in the article, but also at:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1213703-wipo-report-james-pooley.html

for easy downloading.

There are many interesting statements/claims, but I found it very
interesting, and relevant to our work, that WIPO:

1.  apparently believes that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
doesn't apply to itself (para 27)

2. has interesting standards of what constitutes "evidence" (see paras
29-37). This is especially important, given that the IGO small group
talks about an extra-judicial procedure where the standard of proof is
always open to interpretation. When looking at their own behaviour,
they argue that certain matters/claims are not "substantiated", yet
they put forth a standard for others where the proof must be
"clear-cut" or with "no material open questions of fact" or "obvious
risk"....

3. waived immunity (see paragraph 12).

4. works with legal authorities (e.g. para 10, when DNA evidence was
taken to Swiss police) or threatens legal proceedings when attempting
to intimidate bloggers:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140428/06585327048/shameful-wipo-threatens-blogger-with-criminal-charges-accurately-reporting-wipo-directors-alleged-misconduct.shtml

"In addition, I should like to remind you that under Swiss law, the
publication of such false and defamatory material could constitute a
criminal offence."
...
Please be informed that if this request is not immediately acceded to,
the Director General and WIPO will seek independent legal advise to
bring defamation proceedings against you in any competent
jurisdiction. "

WIPO and other IGOs assert to our PDP that they worry about immunity,
yet are quick to threaten use of the courts by themselves "in any
competent jurisdiction."

I would like to hear from the IGOs about this inconsistency, and
what's stopping them from using the courts/laws/police for alleged
trademark abuse, impersonation, fraud, etc. instead of alleged
defamation or to investigate DNA?

Let's suppose that instead of that material being published on
techdirt.com, it was instead published on WIPODNASCANDAL.COM or
WIPO.SUCKS (unregistered as of today). Is that the kind of domain that
would be subject to their proposed procedures, if their intimidation
tactics were unsuccessful?

Sincerely,

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