[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Consolidated results of informal poll constituting preliminary consensus call on Options A-C
Paul Keating
Paul at law.es
Wed Nov 22 21:27:59 UTC 2017
Phil,
I am sorry but I completely disagree. The only impact the the MJ has is the
fact that it creates one (1) jurisdiction in which the Complainant has
agreed to litigate (and as such issues of personal jurisdiction become moot)
and it creates an automatic stay without need for separate TRO or similar
court order. It does not preclude a respondent from litigating the matter
in any other appropriate jurisdiction. Hence any respondent may litigate,
for example, in the US where a claim is recognized by statute (there are
other jurisdictions as well).
Further, the problem we were tasked to address was the issue of IGOs and
sovereign immunity. Our conclusion, based upon facts and law, was that no
problem existed because the system worked as intended and no IGO had
provided evidence of preclusion as a result of 4(k) or the Mutual
Jurisdiction certification. While it might be nice to address UDRP failings
for the benefit of respondents that was not our mandate. That is a mandate
for the UDRP review WG.
I have said many times that I do not favor any changes to our initial report
other than incorporating the further public comments received to the extent
relevant.
There simply is no evidence that any ³problem² exists. And, by the way, if
there was a problem based on sovereign immunity, why stop at IGOs? What
about American Indian Tribes or Countries, etc.??
When we were engaging in" what ifs² I stated my support for a rule change
regarding vitiating the underlying UDRP ruling IF an IGO obtained dismissal
of post-udrp litigation based on Sov. Imm. In other words, if the IGOs
thought they had immunity, let them argue for it with the appropriate
consequences.
I am completely opposed to creating any other form of ³solution² and if
pressed I would have to be honest and fall back to my initial position
also stated above that UDRP policy changes are beyond our remit. We were
tasked only o review IGO related issues. We concluded there were none.
Paul
From: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin at verisign.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 6:40 PM
To: "Maher, David" <dmaher at pir.org>, Paul Keating <paul at law.es>,
"petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu" <petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>,
"icann at leap.com" <icann at leap.com>
Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Consolidated results of informal poll
constituting preliminary consensus call on Options A-C
> ³By creating an independent arbitration process for NGOs you are (a)
> contradicting not one but at least two of founding principles of the UDRP.²
>
> Personal comment: The post-judicial granting of immunity/dismissal of
> litigation arbitration option is being proposed for the benefit of domain
> registrants, not IGOs, to assure some meaningful appeal process when the
> judicial route is foreclosed.
>
> But if there is not consensus support for that option we can stick to present
> policy and leave them without recourse.
>
>
>
> From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf
> Of David W. Maher
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 12:34 PM
> To: Paul Keating <Paul at law.es>; petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu; George Kirikos
> <icann at leap.com>
> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Consolidated results of informal
> poll constituting preliminary consensus call on Options A-C
>
> +1
> For additional history of the UDRP, see:
> http://dmaher.org/Publications/globaliz.pdf
>
>
>
> David W. Maher
> Public Interest Registry
> Senior Vice-President Law & Policy
> +1 312 375 4849
>
>
> From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf
> Of Paul Keating
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 11:09 AM
> To: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu; George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>
> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Consolidated results of informal poll
> constituting preliminary consensus call on Options A-C
> Importance: High
>
>
> Peter,
>
>
>
> I do wish to point out that the UDRP was not intended to create rights that
> did not exist prior to the UDRP. This is in the founding WIPO report that was
> adopted by ICANN with a great deal of grandeur. The 1999 Report also stated
> as a foundational position that respondents were to retain their day in court.
>
>
>
> NGOs existed prior to the UDRP. Prior to the UDRP the only means by which
> they could enforce rights as against a domain name registrant was to commence
> litigation (either directly or indirectly via a stalking horse/assignee, etc).
> Pre-UDRP there was no basis for forcing the respondent into any form of
> arbitration.
>
>
>
> The UDRP was thoughtfully created to grant the right to litigate de novo. The
> Policy references such litigation in several places and the consent to Mutual
> Jurisdiction is expressly limited to the dispute concerning the domain name.
> From this several sound legal principles have arisen.
>
>
>
> 1. Policy 4(k) does not itself create an independent right of action.
> A losing respondent must still find a statutory basis upon which to rest its
> claim. This has been recognized in virtually all post-UDRP cases including
> those in the UK (note the Yoyo decision among others).
>
>
>
> 2. The Mutual Jurisdiction certification does not extend beyond the
> reversal of the UDRP decision. The certification does not itself grant
> personal jurisdiction over the Complainant (now defendant) for any other form
> of claim. This precludes the awarding of monetary damages other than costs
> unless there is an independent claim to base it upon or the court has personal
> jurisdiction over the Complainant/defendant independently of the MJ
> certification.
>
>
>
>
>
> By creating an independent arbitration process for NGOs you are (a)
> contradicting not one but at least two of founding principles of the UDRP.
>
>
>
> With all respect, I have yet to see any argument in favor of the positions
> currently being promoted by the Chairs other than (a) the Board/GAC/IGOs
> want it that way.
>
>
>
> And, now that George has surfaced an actual study comparing tech costs of
> arbitration to traditional litigation, there seems absolutely no credible
> reason to continue to support the private arbitration suggestions.
>
>
>
> I invite ANYONE to provide evidence to the contrary. And by evidence I mean
> that not assumptions or beliefs but facts.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> 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 <mailto: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: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>
> Reply-To: <petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>
> Date: Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 12:22 AM
> To: George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>
> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Consolidated results of informal poll
> constituting preliminary consensus call on Options A-C
>
>
>>
>> Dear George,
>>
>> I think you have made it continuously clear that you are in favour of Option
>> A. And, as a WG member, you are of course free to explain why you voted for
>> Option A.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, the fact is that we not just only have a clear majority support for
>> Option C (9 supports and 2 that can live with it), compared to Option A (5
>> supports and 1 that can live with it), it is also clear that there is a
>> majority against Option A (8 does not support), compared to Option C (3 does
>> not support).
>>
>>
>>
>> This is not just Philip¹s and mine arguments, it is the pure fact.
>>
>>
>>
>> I can fully understand that, as in all voting cases, it may sometimes be hard
>> to understand why a majority has other thoughts about a specific topic.
>>
>>
>>
>> And all WG members had (and have) their freedom to further explain and argue
>> their support for a specific solution/option. As you say George, sometimes a
>> support for one specified option needs more detailed explanation, where other
>> options may be more clear, "fair and balanced".
>>
>>
>>
>> As to Option 6: As you may recall, you have made the presentation during our
>> WG meetings, and we (the full WG) have discussed it. As you also may recall,
>> the conclusion within our WG meetings was that not all courts would accept
>> that, independently of what the parties have agreed upon. During last call,
>> we invited you to - during the upcoming week provide us (the WG) with your
>> suggestion on your proposed specific solution to be added to the current
>> description of the arbitration option for consideration by the WG.
>>
>>
>>
>> I therefore look forward your specific wording / suggestion on that topic.
>>
>>
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Petter
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Petter Rindforth, LL M
>>
>>
>>
>> Fenix Legal KB
>>
>> Stureplan 4c, 4tr
>>
>> 114 35 Stockholm
>>
>> Sweden
>>
>> Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
>>
>> Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
>>
>> E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu
>>
>> www.fenixlegal.eu <http://www.fenixlegal.eu>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> NOTICE
>>
>> This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to
>> whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged
>> information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not
>> the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it
>> or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and
>> notify us by return e-mail.
>>
>> Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu <http://www.fenixlegal.eu>
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 17 november 2017 20:16:33 +01:00, skrev George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>:
>>>
>>> I think the comments within this survey are quite telling. Those who
>>>
>>> are in favour of option A (and opposing option C) have very strong and
>>>
>>> fully considered views, which they can explain and support with facts
>>>
>>> and reasoning. Compare that to those expressing support for C (and
>>>
>>> opposing A/B). They make statements like:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Fair and balanced" (supporting C)
>>>
>>> "DOA at Council" (opposing A)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> bereft of credible reasoning.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This demonstrates that it's fear-mongering by the co-chairs and
>>>
>>> political motivations that led some to switch from Option 1 (now
>>>
>>> Option A) to Option C (formerly Option 2), rather than anything based
>>>
>>> on new facts or new analysis. Given this, it explains the refusal by
>>>
>>> the co-chairs to attach names to those who are supporting Option C --
>>>
>>> there's no expectation of privacy here --- everyone must vote publicly
>>>
>>> when it comes down to a final consensus call, and should have been
>>>
>>> able to publicly explain why they supported Option C in this
>>>
>>> preliminary survey.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the book "Principles" by Ray Dalio that I'm reading, he writes
>>>
>>> about how decisions at Bridgewater go through what's called
>>>
>>> "believability-weighted decision making", see some discussion of that
>>>
>>> at:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.businessinsider.com/bridgewater-ray-dalio-legacy-2017-9
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that is a wise approach, whereby votes that are backed by
>>>
>>> sound logic, facts, experience, and reasoning should be weighted much
>>>
>>> higher than votes that lack those attributes and which are instead
>>>
>>> fear-driven and thus are not believable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's been said that "One man with courage makes a majority." Hopefully
>>>
>>> it does not have to come to that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> George Kirikos
>>>
>>> 416-588-0269
>>>
>>> http://www.leap.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As noted on the Working Group call yesterday, please find attached the
>>>>
>>>> consolidated results of the informal poll that was conducted regarding
>>>>
>>>> Working Group member preferences as among Options A, B and C.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Individual Working Group members especially those who provided specific
>>>>
>>>> comments as part of their poll response are invited to add any relevant
>>>>
>>>> background and further thoughts to this email.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and cheers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>>>>
>>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
>>>>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>>>
>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
>>>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing
>> list
>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ing
>> o-crp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20171122/fa2dec68/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2662 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20171122/fa2dec68/image002-0001.jpg>
More information about the Gnso-igo-ingo-crp
mailing list