<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 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.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@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="MsoPlainText">George:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">As we prepare for this week’s call, I wanted to address your concern that I was citing unnamed attorneys for the proposition that, if an IGO successfully asserted an immunity defense today in a judicial appeal brought by a domain registrant
following an adverse UDRP decision the dismissal of the court case would result in the release of the hold on the UDRP decision and the subsequent extinguishment or transfer of the domain at issue. I was by no means trying to pad this conclusion by the fact
that I had also conferred on this matter with some colleagues who engage in UDRP practice (generally for registrants, not complainants), but I simply don’t feel that I have the right to name these people to this list. That said, we had a dialogue on this matter
during our June 15<sup>th</sup> meeting and both Petter and Paul Keating concurred with that conclusion (see transcript of audio and chat below).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">A look at the text of the UDRP leads to the same conclusion as well:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b><i>k. Availability of Court Proceedings.</i></b><i> The mandatory administrative proceeding requirements set forth in <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en#4">Paragraph 4</a> shall not prevent either
you or the complainant from submitting the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction for independent resolution before such mandatory administrative proceeding is commenced or after such proceeding is concluded. If an Administrative Panel decides that your
domain name registration should be canceled or transferred, we will wait ten (10) business days (as observed in the location of our principal office) after we are informed by the applicable Provider of the Administrative Panel's decision before implementing
that decision. We will then implement the decision unless we have received from you during that ten (10) business day period official documentation (such as a copy of a complaint, file-stamped by the clerk of the court) that you have commenced a lawsuit against
the complainant in a jurisdiction to which the complainant has submitted under <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/udrp-rules-2015-03-11-en#3bxiii">Paragraph 3(b)(xiii)</a> of the Rules of Procedure. (In general, that jurisdiction is either the
location of our principal office or of your address as shown in our Whois database. See <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/udrp-rules-2015-03-11-en#1mutualjurisdiction">Paragraphs 1</a> and <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/udrp-rules-2015-03-11-en#3bxiii">3(b)(xiii)</a> of
the Rules of Procedure for details.) If we receive such documentation within the ten (10) business day period, we will not implement the Administrative Panel's decision, and
<b>we will take no further action, until we receive</b> (i) evidence satisfactory to us of a resolution between the parties; (ii)
<b>evidence satisfactory to us that your lawsuit has been dismissed or withdrawn</b>; or (iii) a copy of an order from such court dismissing your lawsuit or ordering that you do not have the right to continue to use your domain name.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><i><o:p> </o:p></i></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">So dismissal of the litigation based on an IGO’s raising of an immunity defense – which Prof. Swaine believed was a potential outcome in at least some jurisdictions – would lead to a reinstatement and execution of the original UDRP decision.
That is why I believe that the Option 2 we have been discussing, by assuring domain registrants of at least a right to arbitration in this scenario under the law and procedural rules that was the basis for the judicial appeal, is more advantageous for the
registrant than the current rule, and strikes a good balance between assuring a meaningful right of appeal while leaving decisions on IGO immunity to the courts.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Finally, in regard to the language of the Tucows agreement that you cited, that is of course between the registrar and its registrant customer and does not bind an IGO complainant.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Best regards, Philip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/2017-06-15+IGO-INGO+Access+to+Curative+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+Working+Group?preview=/66078536/66081886/transcript-igo-ingo-crp-access-15jun17-en.pdf">https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/2017-06-15+IGO-INGO+Access+to+Curative+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+Working+Group?preview=/66078536/66081886/transcript-igo-ingo-crp-access-15jun17-en.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Phil Corwin:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Yes, thank you; Phil for the record.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">As we discuss Option 1 and Option 2, given the fact that this working group
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">has been at this for quite a long time; I believe we're <o:p>
</o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">-<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">are we at three years <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">now? But<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I know we've been going quite a while on this and we'd like to see
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">something concrete result from our work because our work is the first step in
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">a process, and whatever we finally report out will go to Council for its review
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">and hopefully its approval.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">And we're all aware that the original request of the IGO's forth for a process
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">that did not find support in this working group <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">--<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">which was for a totally <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">separate DRP not related to the UDRP which it wasn't clear from their ask,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">but it seemed like it would<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">be based both on Trademark law <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">--<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Trademark law <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">rights <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">--<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">and other rights stemming from their special status <o:p>
</o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">--<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">claim special <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">status which would/could lead to broader rights then complainants in a
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">UDRP<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">So in that context and in anticipation of questions or objections to either of
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">these options, I think we just should openly explore them. And in that context,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">I want to raise two issues that concern me <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">--<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">and I've pursued to some extent.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">The first is we haven't changed <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">--<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">and Option 1 in no way would change <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">--<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">the <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">current UDRP. Option 2 would change it slightly for very narrow circumstance
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">that may or may not ever occur.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">But Option 1 would say that if the IGO successfully asserts an
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">immunity <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">defense in a courtroom<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">and<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">as we know from Professor Swain,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">the things <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">that are in our report and in Option 1 are nothing new. <o:p>
</o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">An IGO today could file <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">through an agent, assignee or licensee that will need error and paramount to
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">do that. We're simply noting that they have that possibly to take that path if
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">they wish to further insulate their claim and jurisdictional immunity.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">And under Professor Swain's memo, if an IGO brought an UDRP today and if
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">the domain name registrant lost and decided to file a judicial appeal, the IGO
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">today would be free to assert immunity.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">And per Professor Swain's memo, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">they might succeed in that argument notwithstanding the Mutual Jurisdiction
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Clause<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">or the argument might fail.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">In my own mind, you know, if immunity is a defense, it would be whether they
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">had waived that defense by agreeing to mutual jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">So that leaves to <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">-<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>I've engaged with a number of UDRP panelists and other
<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>attorneys who notice the (unintelligible) and said if today an IGO asserted
<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>successfully asserted immunity <o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>--<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>if there was a judicial appeal from a UDRP<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>decision <o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>--<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>and if the court granted that immunity, what would happen the
<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>underlying UDRP decision. And a number of them have said, "Well, it would
<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>be reinstated and the domain would be transferred."<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">So I don't know what the answer is, but I think if that's a possibility, we'd be
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">changing that outcome with Option 1<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">The other concern that I think will come up with Option 1 is that our whole
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">approach up to now has been to say we're not going to have ICANN grant
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">IGO's immunity in advance of judicial determination. If that situation ever
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">arises, it's up to the judge. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">But the import of Option 1 is essentially to tell the IGO, "Well, your free to
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">assert your immunity, but if you're successful in that claim, the cybersquatting<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">that found by the panel <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">--<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">you know, and the panel could be wrong, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">but in many cases, they're right in the defining of cybersquatting
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">--<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">will be <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">permitted to continue."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">So I'd like a little more discussion on those two points of what would happen
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">if our working group didn't exist<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">and a scenario arose today where an IGO <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">brought a UDRP <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">--<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">registrant appealed under a national law, IGO <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">successfully asserted immunity <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">--<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">what would happen today to the underlying <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">UDRP <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">decision<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">, and is Option 1 consistent with our kind of hands<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">-<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">off <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">approach where we're saying, "We’re not going to have ICANN interfere with
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">any determination on the immunity issue; we're going to leave that to the
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">judges and national courts."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">So I'll stop there. I hope that's helpful and leads to some beneficial
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">discussion.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Thank you.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Petter Rindforth:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Thanks Phil. <b>And as Paul also correctly noted in the Chat, if there is no court
<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>action, domain (unintelligible) because that's the decision that is made. And
<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>there's a limited time where the losing party can take the case to
<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>a court and <o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>be handled there.<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>But there's only a very limited time to act. And if nothing happens within that
<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>time, the decision <o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>--<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>the written decision <o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>--<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>will be the one that is the legal <o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>issue. So transfer or whatever, the decision (unintelligible)<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/2017-06-15+IGO-INGO+Access+to+Curative+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+Working+Group?preview=/66078536/66081515/AC%20Chat%20IGO%20INGO%20CRP%2015%20June%202017.pdf">https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoicrpmpdp/2017-06-15+IGO-INGO+Access+to+Curative+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+Working+Group?preview=/66078536/66081515/AC%20Chat%20IGO%20INGO%20CRP%2015%20June%202017.pdf</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>Paul Keating:Easy. Domain is transferred based on the UDRP.
<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>Paul Keating:THis is the same that would occur if the case were dismissed for any reason.<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>Philip Corwin:I greatly respect Paul's opinion on UDRP matters, and his<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>response is consistent with that <o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><b>of other UDRP panelists and litigating attorneys that I have discussed this with.<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Virtualaw LLC<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">1155 F Street, NW<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Suite 1050<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Washington, DC 20004<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">202-559-8597/Direct<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">202-559-8750/Fax<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">202-255-6172/Cell<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Twitter: @VlawDC<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos<br>
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 10:06 AM<br>
To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org<br>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Attempt at Achieving Full Consensus -- Option #4<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Hello,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Phil Corwin <<a href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">psc@vlaw-dc.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">> It has been the unanimous view of all attorneys we have consulted ...<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">A similar statement was made during today's telephone call. This PDP, and ICANN processes in general, mandate maximum transparency. Citing unnamed attorneys who are not "on the record" within the working group, and who've not been formally
engaged, who may not be independent, nor had their work (or questions/scenarios) reviewed by the working group does not meet the transparency requirements of our PDP. If I did the same, I'd be criticized, and rightly so, as it would be improper.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Why should anyone defer to one's "unnamed supporters" or "unnamed experts" who are not part of this PDP, and ignore the interests of domain name registrants who are far closer to "unanimous" in wanting to preserve their rights to court
action, to the maximum extent, and not have the UDRP tamper with those rights? The price of using the UDRP, as has been stated before, is that one consents to the the supremacy of the courts, if either party wishes to take it there. If one wants an Option
#5, eliminate the UDRP, and force everyone to use the court system. If you want to reinvent the UDRP, you'd go back to what was intended for today -- price of using the "new UDRP" is that the court system remains supreme.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Let me give a scenario that some might have not contemplated: IGO has court case set aside due to immunity, according to a judge, and the domain name transfers to the IGO (i.e. UDRP is followed). However, now the IGO is subject to the
*registration agreement* of that registrar, and the former registrant (loser of the UDRP) then *immediately* files a court case following the court case. For Tucows/OpenSRS, the registration agreement states:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="http://www.loffs.com/Domains/Legal/master.html"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://www.loffs.com/Domains/Legal/master.html</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">"11. .... If Registrant or Registrant's domain name becomes the subject of litigation, Tucows may deposit control of Registrant's domain name record into the registry of the judicial body by supplying a party with a registrar certificate."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">"29. GOVERNING LAW. THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND INTERPRETED AND ENFORCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF PROVINCE OF ONTARIO AND THE FEDERAL LAWS OF CANADA APPLICABLE THEREIN WITHOUT REFERENCE TO RULES GOVERNING CHOICE OF
LAWS. ANY ACTION RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT MUST BE BROUGHT IN ONTARIO AND YOU IRREVOCABLY CONSENT TO THE JURISDICTION OF SUCH COURTS."<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">"Irrevocably consent to the jurisdiction" seems like a further and valid waiver of immunity, to me, perhaps *even stronger* than the mutual jurisdiction clause of the UDRP.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Anyhow, I look forward to the further productive discussions to try to achieve a full consensus.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">George Kirikos<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">416-588-0269<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="http://www.leap.com/"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">http://www.leap.com/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>