[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Proposed agenda and documents for Working Group meeting on Thursday 27 July

Thu Nov 16 14:48:26 UTC 2017

All,

There is an error in my email below.  I wrote NGO when obviously I meant to
reference IGOs.  Please accept my apologies.  Below is a corrected version
that I would like to be included in the record in replacement of the
original.

Unfortunately I have been working on several large projects with clients in
N. Amer. that have me working the phone most days from 5pm onwards.  I have
another call tonight so I will not be able to make it.

I remain in favor of the following principals

A.           That by filing a UDRP complaint and agreeing to the ³Mutual
Jurisdiction² the complainant (including the IGO) is waiving any objection
to jurisdiction of the mutual jurisdiction.

B.           That by relying upon ³trademark² rights the complainant is by
definition admitting to a commercial activity.

C.           There has been no evidence that IGOs have refrained from filing
a UDRP because of their concerns over sovereign immunity.

D.          IGOs have in the past filed UDRPs  evidence that the Mutual
Jurisdiction provisions are not a limiting factor.

*   Assertions of phishing are merely that  assertions. Assertions are not
evidence. 

E.           IGOs have alternative means to press their claims in a UDRP (or
other legal) forum  e.g. by assignment, etc.

*   Phishing and similar conduct can be appropriately prosecuted by law
enforcement on behalf of the IGO.

F.           That if the IGO successfully asserts sovereign immunity in a
post UDRP proceeding, the underlying UDRP decision should be vitiated.

I have previously explained my additional rationale for this position, which
is summarized here:

1.            The UDRP was created as an streamlined administrative action
in which:

a.    Notice and service of process was simplified  no confirmation of
notice is required.

b.    Filings are limited by page/word length.

c.    Evidence is severely limited in both form and quantity

d.    Assertions are often treated as evidence.

e.    There is no ³precedent² value and panelists are neither required nor
inclined to follow relevant judicial decisions.

2.            Section 4(k) was a material part of the bargain to permit a
losing registrant the right to challenge the matter before a real court
under real rules guarantying due process.

3.            IGOs were certainly around at the time.  Their input was
heard.  The UDRP was nevertheless established  with the blessing of WIPO I
might add.

4.            There is no concrete way to establish what constitutes an IGO.
IGOs come in a variety of shapes, sizes and qualities.  Some are expressly
not recognized by nation states.  This in turn rises substantial issues of
proof- which in the context of the limited administrative nature of the UDRP
is inappropriate.

5.            The UDRP is a contractually created process mandated by ICANN.
All registrants must agree to application of the UDRP (or similar ADR) as a
condition to registration.  The UDRP Policy itself is not based upon
recognized jurisprudence and is constantly shifting in meaning and scope as
panelists seek to further streamline the process by largely ignoring the
express language of the Policy.  It also obligates the registrant to abide
by an ever-changing landscape of trademarks (e.g. registration and use of a
domain name in PPC followed by a later trademark registration would place
the registrant at risk of losing the domain name because PPC use is rarely
recognized and at least a minority of panelists continue to apply
retroactive standards such as those found in MummyGold and other decisions
attempting to retroactively apply Paragraph 2 to the Policy).

6.            Trademark rights have been proscribed to a ³standing²
requirement that presents no meaningful condition.

7.            The requirement that the trademark be ³identical or
confusingly similar² to the asserted trademark has been proscribed such that
the condition is met whenever the trademark appears (in whole or significant
part) in the domain name.  Thus, for example, the rule supports finding that
the domain name ³the.com² is confusingly similar to a trademark for
³Theatre² because the letter sequence ³the² appears in both.

8.            Panelists rarely apply trademark analysis to the registrant¹s
use of the domain name.

UDRP Appeals Process.

I have forwarded a prior email to Mr. Beckman and the WG on the subject of a
UDRP appeal process  organized and managed in a manner similar to the DRS
process at Nominet.  This is not a change of position as I favor an appeals
process for all UDRP participants.

As I stated in my communications, such an appeals process is not a
replacement of Section 4(k) or the mutual jurisdiction certification.
Instead it should be an economical means of correcting poorly reasoned
decisions by inexperienced or biased panelists  economical in that it
limits those situations in which the parties must spend tens of thousands of
dollars in litigation.

I strongly disfavor any appeals process that would be unique to IGOs or that
would remove the protections of Section 4(k) or the mutual jurisdictional
certification.

Sincerely,

Paul Raynor Keating, Esq.

Law.es <http://law.es/>

Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain)

Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK)
Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US)

Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810

Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450

Skype: Prk-Spain

email:  Paul at law.es

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN
INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE.  THE
INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM
IT IS ADDRESSED.  IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF
PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO  PLEASE DELETE THE
EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS.

Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules
governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained
herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be
used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding
any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be
used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting,
marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter
addressed herein.

NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN
ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS
FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT,
WHICH THIS IS NOT.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED
HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE

From:  Paul Keating <paul at law.es>
Date:  Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 2:30 PM
To:  Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org"
<gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
Cc:  George Kirikos <george at loffs.com>
Subject:  Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Proposed agenda and documents for Working
Group meeting on Thursday 27 July

> Mary and fellow WG members,
> 
> 
> Unfortunately I have been working on several large projects with clients in
> North America that have me working the phone most daystar 8am conference calls
> (which for me  being in Barcelona - begin at  5pm onwards.  I have another
> client call tonight so I will not be able to make the call today.
> 
> 
> Please make the following known to the group and retain it in the WG records
>  
> 
> 
> I remain in favor of the following principals
>  
> A.           That by filing a UDRP complaint and agreeing to the ³Mutual
> Jurisdiction² the complainant (including the NGO) is waiving any objection to
> jurisdiction of the mutual jurisdiction.
> 
>  
> 
> B.           That by relying upon ³trademark² rights the complainant is by
> definition admitting to a commercial activity.
> 
>  
> C.           There has been no evidence that NGOs have refrained from filing a
> UDRP because of their concerns over sovereign immunity.
> 
>  
> 
> D.          NGOs have in the past filed UDRPs  evidence that the Mutual
> Jurisdiction provisions are not a limiting factor.
> 
>  
> *   Assertions of phishing are merely that  assertions. Assertions are not
> evidence. 
>  
> E.           NGOs have alternative means to press their claims in a UDRP (or
> other legal) forum  e.g. by assignment, etc.
> 
>  
> 
> *   Phishing and similar conduct can be appropriately prosecuted by law
> enforcement on behalf of the NGO.
>  
> F.           That if the NGO successfully asserts sovereign immunity in a post
> UDRP proceeding, the underlying UDRP decision should be vitiated.
> 
>  
> I have previously explained my additional rationale for this position, which
> is summarized here:
>  
> 1.            The UDRP was created as an streamlined administrative action in
> which:
> 
>  
> a.    Notice and service of process was simplified  no confirmation of notice
> is required.
> 
> b.    Filings are limited by page/word length.
> 
> c.    Evidence is severely limited in both form and quantity
> 
> d.    Assertions are often treated as evidence.
> 
> e.    There is no ³precedent² value and panelists are neither required nor
> inclined to follow relevant judicial decisions.
> 
>  
> 
> 2.            Section 4(k) was a material part of the bargain to permit a
> losing registrant the right to challenge the matter before a real court under
> real rules guarantying due process.
> 
>  
> 
> 3.            NGOs were certainly around at the time.  Their input was heard.
> The UDRP was nevertheless established  with the blessing of WIPO I might add.
> 
>  
> 4.            There is no concrete way to establish what constitutes an NGO.
> NGOs come in a variety of shapes, sizes and qualities.  Some are expressly not
> recognized by nation states.  This in turn rises substantial issues of proof-
> which in the context of the limited administrative nature of the UDRP is
> inappropriate.
> 
>  
> 5.            The UDRP is a contractually created process mandated by ICANN.
> All registrants must agree to application of the UDRP (or similar ADR) as a
> condition to registration.  The UDRP Policy itself is not based upon
> recognized jurisprudence and is constantly shifting in meaning and scope as
> panelists seek to further streamline the process by largely ignoring the
> express language of the Policy.  It also obligates the registrant to abide by
> an ever-changing landscape of trademarks (e.g. registration and use of a
> domain name in PPC followed by a later trademark registration would place the
> registrant at risk of losing the domain name because PPC use is rarely
> recognized and at least a minority of panelists continue to apply retroactive
> standards such as those found in MummyGold and other decisions attempting to
> retroactively apply Paragraph 2 to the Policy).
> 
>  
> 
> 6.            Trademark rights have been proscribed to a ³standing²
> requirement that presents no meaningful condition.
> 
>  
> 7.            The requirement that the trademark be ³identical or confusingly
> similar² to the asserted trademark has been proscribed such that the condition
> is met whenever the trademark appears (in whole or significant part) in the
> domain name.  Thus, for example, the rule supports finding that the domain
> name ³the.com² is confusingly similar to a trademark for ³Theatre² because the
> letter sequence ³the² appears in both.
> 
>  
> 8.            Panelists rarely apply trademark analysis to the registrant¹s
> use of the domain name.
> 
>  
> UDRP Appeals Process.
>  
> I have forwarded a prior email to Mr. Beckman and the WG on the subject of a
> UDRP appeal process  organized and managed in a manner similar to the DRS
> process at Nominet.  This is not a change of position as I favor an appeals
> process for all UDRP participants.
>  
> As I stated in my communications, such an appeals process is not a replacement
> of Section 4(k) or the mutual jurisdiction certification. Instead it should be
> an economical means of correcting poorly reasoned decisions by inexperienced
> or biased panelists  economical in that it limits those situations in which
> the parties must spend tens of thousands of dollars in litigation.
>  
> I strongly disfavor any appeals process that would be unique to NGOs or that
> would remove the protections of Section 4(k) or the mutual jurisdictional
> certification.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20171116/c81a0292/attachment-0001.html>