<div dir="ltr">I completely agree with Paul on this. These IGO names issues have been a political football for nearly five years now. The GAC is never going to get the GNSO to say what the GAC wants it to say -- we are not going to agree. The GAC has never proved any legitimate public interest concern to back their position. Accordingly, the IGO names policy was passed by a supermajority of the GNSO (as likely will be this latest policy recommendation) and that has implications in the Bylaws for the Board. The Board needs to make a decision. The GNSO need not be interested in politics, that is the Board and GAC's concern; we are interested in facts and real world policy.<div> </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small">Mike Rodenbaugh</div><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small">RODENBAUGH LAW</div><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small">tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087</div><div style="font-family:arial;font-size:small"><a href="http://rodenbaugh.com" target="_blank">http://rodenbaugh.com</a> </div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Paul Keating <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Paul@law.es" target="_blank">Paul@law.es</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><div>Phil,</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for the email and sorry I will not be on the call. I have a client call that conflicts.</div><div><br></div><div>I also understand you are opposed to the views expressed below but mainly from a political viewpoint - that being that the ICANN board and GAC have seemingly rejected the initial conclusions of the WG which was to make no change. I believe your point is that we should come up with a political compromise that could be accepted.</div><div><br></div><div>I respectfully disagree. We have done the work and we have obtained both evidence and legal opinions that support that work. If ICANN does not wish to accept the conclusions then that is not in-and-of-iteelf a reason to change what we have originally concluded. ICANN can reject the result and appoint a new WG to try to reach a different conclusion. They could act independently and outside of the system. However, in any case:</div><div><br></div><div>The current situation remains in place, albeit absent the vitiating of the UDRP decision.</div><div>The new WG would have to contend with our prior findings which would be difficult to ignore</div><div>ICANN – in acting alone – would have to deal with the political issues that come with such actions.</div><div><br></div><div>None of these should be our concern. We are tasked to examine the question and reach a consensus based upon the evidence and the legal opinions we have obtained. I do not believe that we have concluded that there is in fact a problem (in fact all evidence seems to the contrary – IGOs have used the UDRP system as it is and there is no evidence that any have refrained from taking curative steps because of the sovereign immunity issue). Given that landscape it is improper IMHO to attempt to forge a political solution that creates substantial burdens for domain name registrants, upsets their long standing contractual rights and expectations, and creates yet another curative rights mechanism.</div><div><br></div><div>Respectfully,</div><div><br></div><div>Paul Keating</div><div><br></div><span id="m_-4812327493733238524OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:11pt;text-align:left;color:black;BORDER-BOTTOM:medium none;BORDER-LEFT:medium none;PADDING-BOTTOM:0in;PADDING-LEFT:0in;PADDING-RIGHT:0in;BORDER-TOP:#b5c4df 1pt solid;BORDER-RIGHT:medium none;PADDING-TOP:3pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> Phil Corwin <<a href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com" target="_blank">psc@vlaw-dc.com</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 5:36 PM<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> Paul Keating <<a href="mailto:paul@law.es" target="_blank">paul@law.es</a>>, Mary Wong <<a href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org" target="_blank">mary.wong@icann.org</a>>, "<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span> George Kirikos <<a href="mailto:george@loffs.com" target="_blank">george@loffs.com</a>>, Philip Corwin <<a href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com" target="_blank">pcorwin@verisign.com</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Proposed agenda and documents for Working Group meeting on Thursday 27 July<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote id="m_-4812327493733238524MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT:#b5c4df 5 solid;PADDING:0 0 0 5;MARGIN:0 0 0 5"><div><div dir="ltr"><div id="m_-4812327493733238524divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif" dir="ltr"><p>Thanks for these thoughts, Paul</p><p><br></p><div id="m_-4812327493733238524Signature"><div id="m_-4812327493733238524divtagdefaultwrapper" dir="ltr" style="font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif,EmojiFont,"Apple Color Emoji","Segoe UI Emoji",NotoColorEmoji,"Segoe UI Symbol","Android Emoji",EmojiSymbols"><p>Philip S. Corwin</p><p>Founding Principal</p><p>Virtualaw LLC</p><p>1155 F Street, NW</p><p>Washington, DC 20004</p><p><a href="tel:(202)%20559-8597" value="+12025598597" target="_blank">202-559-8597</a>/Direct</p><p><a href="tel:(202)%20559-8750" value="+12025598750" target="_blank">202-559-8750</a>/Fax</p><p><a href="tel:(202)%20255-6172" value="+12022556172" target="_blank">202-255-6172</a>/Cell</p><p><br></p><p>Twitter: @VLawDC</p><p><br></p><p>"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey</p><p><br></p><p><br></p></div></div><br><br><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%"><div id="m_-4812327493733238524divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri,sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@<wbr>icann.org</a>> on behalf of Paul Keating <<a href="mailto:Paul@law.es" target="_blank">Paul@law.es</a>><br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, November 16, 2017 9:48 AM<br><b>To:</b> Mary Wong; <a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a><br><b>Cc:</b> George Kirikos<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Proposed agenda and documents for Working Group meeting on Thursday 27 July</font><div> </div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><div>All,</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">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.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">I remain in favor of the following principals</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:54.0pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">A.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">That by filing a UDRP complaint and agreeing to the “Mutual Jurisdiction” the complainant (including the IGO) is waiving any objection to jurisdiction of the mutual jurisdiction.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:54.0pt"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left:54.0pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">B.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">That by relying upon “trademark” rights the complainant is by definition admitting to a commercial activity.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:54.0pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">C.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">There has been no evidence that IGOs have refrained from filing a UDRP because of their concerns over sovereign immunity.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:54.0pt"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left:54.0pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">D.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">IGOs have in the past filed UDRPs – evidence that the Mutual Jurisdiction provisions are not a limiting factor.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.9pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">* Assertions of phishing are merely that – assertions. Assertions are not evidence.
</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="margin-left:54.0pt"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:54.0pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">E.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">IGOs have alternative means to press their claims in a UDRP (or other legal) forum – e.g. by assignment, etc.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left:54.0pt"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="margin-left:70.9pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">* Phishing and similar conduct can be appropriately prosecuted by law enforcement on behalf of the IGO.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:54.0pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">F.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">That if the IGO successfully asserts sovereign immunity in a post UDRP proceeding, the underlying UDRP decision should be vitiated.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">I have previously explained my additional rationale for this position, which is summarized here:</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:54.0pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">1.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">The UDRP was created as an streamlined administrative action in which:</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:72.0pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">a.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">Notice and service of process was simplified – no confirmation of notice is required.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72.0pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">b.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">Filings are limited by page/word length.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72.0pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">c.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">Evidence is severely limited in both form and quantity</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72.0pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">d.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">Assertions are often treated as evidence.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72.0pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">e.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">There is no “precedent” value and panelists are neither required nor inclined to follow relevant judicial decisions.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:54.0pt"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:54.0pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">2.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">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.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:54.0pt"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left:54.0pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">3.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">IGOs were certainly around at the time. Their input was heard. The UDRP was nevertheless established – with the blessing of WIPO I might add.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:54.0pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">4.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">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.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:54.0pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">5.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">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).</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:54.0pt"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left:54.0pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">6.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">Trademark rights have been proscribed to a “standing” requirement that presents no meaningful condition.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:54.0pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">7.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">The requirement that the trademark be “identical or confusingly similar” 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 “<a href="http://the.com" target="_blank">the.com</a>” is confusingly similar to a trademark for “Theatre” because the letter sequence “the” appears in both.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:54.0pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">8.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">Panelists rarely apply trademark analysis to the registrant’s use of the domain name.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-size:14pt">UDRP Appeals Process.
</span></u></b></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">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. </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">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.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">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.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><br></span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><br></span></p><div><div style="font-size:medium;font-family:Calibri"><div><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Sincerely,</span></p></div><div><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Paul Raynor Keating, Esq.</span></p></div><div><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><a href="http://law.es/" style="color:purple" id="m_-4812327493733238524LPlnk861130" target="_blank">Law.es</a></span></p><div id="m_-4812327493733238524LPBorder_GT_15108501464150.8923716509271318" style="margin-bottom:20px;overflow:auto;width:100%;text-indent:0px"><table id="m_-4812327493733238524LPContainer_15108501463980.003840457525762231" cellspacing="0" style="width:90%;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);overflow:auto;padding-top:20px;padding-bottom:20px;margin-top:20px;border-top:1px dotted rgb(200,200,200);border-bottom:1px dotted rgb(200,200,200)"><tbody><tr valign="top" style="border-spacing:0px"><td id="m_-4812327493733238524ImageCell_15108501464010.6342808618785387" colspan="1" style="width:250px;display:table-cell;padding-right:20px"><div id="m_-4812327493733238524LPImageContainer_15108501464010.8646011058401852" style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);height:44px;margin:auto;display:table;width:44px"><a id="m_-4812327493733238524LPImageAnchor_15108501464020.037053068558347" href="http://law.es/" style="display:table-cell;text-align:center" target="_blank"><img id="m_-4812327493733238524LPThumbnailImageID_15108501464020.09378660378285208" style="display:inline-block;max-width:250px;max-height:250px;height:44px;width:44px;border-width:0px;vertical-align:bottom" width="44" height="44" src="http://d1se4t4tzjp7kt.cloudfront.net/2ee20d93b6/templates/limited/images/logo.png"></a></div></td><td id="m_-4812327493733238524TextCell_15108501464030.5433544511797981" colspan="2" style="vertical-align:top;padding:0px;display:table-cell"><div id="m_-4812327493733238524LPRemovePreviewContainer_15108501464040.5670316043870549"></div><div id="m_-4812327493733238524LPExpandDescriptionContainer_15108501464040.47908024132195504"></div><div id="m_-4812327493733238524LPTitle_15108501464040.5363390908136008" style="color:rgb(0,120,215);font-weight:normal;font-size:21px;font-family:wf_segoe-ui_light,"Segoe UI Light","Segoe WP Light","Segoe UI","Segoe WP",Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif;line-height:21px"><a id="m_-4812327493733238524LPUrlAnchor_15108501464060.14045260300513762" href="http://law.es/" style="text-decoration:none" target="_blank">Law.es</a></div><div id="m_-4812327493733238524LPMetadata_15108501464060.32557696300254313" style="margin:10px 0px 16px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-weight:normal;font-family:wf_segoe-ui_normal,"Segoe UI","Segoe WP",Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:14px">
<a href="http://law.es" target="_blank">law.es</a></div><div id="m_-4812327493733238524LPDescription_15108501464070.07096566415484062" style="display:block;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-weight:normal;font-family:wf_segoe-ui_normal,"Segoe UI","Segoe WP",Tahoma,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:20px;max-height:100px;overflow:hidden">
Law.es is a modern firm with the single goal of providing timely and targeted expert legal advice within the demanding business environment of the client.</div></td></tr></tbody></table></div><br><p></p></div><div><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Tel. <a href="tel:+34%20933%2068%2002%2047" value="+34933680247" target="_blank">+34 93 368 0247</a> (Spain)</span></p></div><div><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Tel. <a href="tel:+44%207531%20400177" value="+447531400177" target="_blank">+44.7531.400.177</a> (UK)</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><b><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(102,102,102)">Tel. <a href="tel:(415)%20937-0846" value="+14159370846" target="_blank">+1.415.937.0846</a> (US)</span></b></p></div><div><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Fax. (Europe) <a href="tel:+34%20933%2096%2008%2010" value="+34933960810" target="_blank">+34 93 396 0810</a></span></p></div><div><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Fax. (US)<a href="tel:(415)%20358-4450" value="+14153584450" target="_blank">(415) 358.4450</a></span></p></div><div><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">Skype: Prk-Spain</span></p></div><div><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">email: </span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:blue"><a href="mailto:Paul@law.es" style="color:purple" target="_blank">Paul@law.es</a></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"></span></p></div><div><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></p></div><div><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">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. </span></p></div><div><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></p></div><div><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">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.</span></p></div><div><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></p></div><div><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">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</span></p></div></div><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif">
</p></div></div><div><br></div><span id="m_-4812327493733238524OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION"><div style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:11pt;text-align:left;color:black;border-bottom:medium none;border-left:medium none;padding-bottom:0in;padding-left:0in;padding-right:0in;border-top:#b5c4df 1pt solid;border-right:medium none;padding-top:3pt"><span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>Paul Keating <<a href="mailto:paul@law.es" target="_blank">paul@law.es</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Thursday, November 16, 2017 at 2:30 PM<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>Mary Wong <<a href="mailto:mary.wong@icann.org" target="_blank">mary.wong@icann.org</a>>, "<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span>George Kirikos <<a href="mailto:george@loffs.com" target="_blank">george@loffs.com</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Proposed agenda and documents for Working Group meeting on Thursday 27 July<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote id="m_-4812327493733238524x_MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="border-left:#b5c4df 5 solid;padding:0 0 0 5;margin:0 0 0 5"><div><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:14pt">Mary and fellow WG members,</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:14pt"><br></span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt">Unfortunately I have been working on several large projects with clients in North America that have me working the phone most </span><span style="font-size:18.66666603088379px">daystar</span><span style="font-size:14pt"> 8am
conference calls (which for me </span><span style="font-size:18.66666603088379px">–</span><span style="font-size:14pt"> being in Barcelona - begin at 5pm onwards. I have </span><span style="font-size:18.66666603088379px">another</span><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span><span style="font-size:14pt">client
call tonight so I will not be able to make the call today.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:14pt"><br></span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:14pt">Please make the following known to the group and retain it in the WG records</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:14pt"><br></span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:14pt">I remain in favor of the following principals</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:54pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">A.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">That by filing a UDRP complaint and agreeing to the “Mutual Jurisdiction” the complainant (including the NGO) is waiving any objection to jurisdiction of the mutual jurisdiction.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:54pt"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:54pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">B.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">That by relying upon “trademark” rights the complainant is by definition admitting to a commercial activity.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:54pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">C.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">There has been no evidence that NGOs have refrained from filing a UDRP because of their concerns over sovereign immunity.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:54pt"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:54pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">D.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">NGOs have in the past filed UDRPs – evidence that the Mutual Jurisdiction provisions are not a limiting factor.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:70.9pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">* Assertions of phishing are merely that – assertions. Assertions are not evidence.
</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:54pt"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:54pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">E.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">NGOs have alternative means to press their claims in a UDRP (or other legal) forum – e.g. by assignment, etc.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:54pt"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:70.9pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">* Phishing and similar conduct can be appropriately prosecuted by law enforcement on behalf of the NGO.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraph" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:54pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">F.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">That if the NGO successfully asserts sovereign immunity in a post UDRP proceeding, the underlying UDRP decision should be vitiated.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:14pt">I have previously explained my additional rationale for this position, which is summarized here:</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraph" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:54pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">1.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">The UDRP was created as an streamlined administrative action in which:</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:72pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">a.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">Notice and service of process was simplified – no confirmation of notice is required.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:72pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">b.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">Filings are limited by page/word length.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:72pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">c.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">Evidence is severely limited in both form and quantity</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:72pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">d.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">Assertions are often treated as evidence.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:72pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">e.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">There is no “precedent” value and panelists are neither required nor inclined to follow relevant judicial decisions.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:54pt"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:54pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">2.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">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.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:54pt"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:54pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">3.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">NGOs were certainly around at the time. Their input was heard. The UDRP was nevertheless established – with the blessing of WIPO I might add.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraph" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:54pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">4.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">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.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:54pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">5.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">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).</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:54pt"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:54pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">6.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">Trademark rights have been proscribed to a “standing” requirement that presents no meaningful condition.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraph" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:54pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">7.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">The requirement that the trademark be “identical or confusingly similar” 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 “<a href="http://the.com" target="_blank">the.com</a>” is confusingly similar to a trademark for “Theatre” because the letter sequence “the” appears in both.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoListParagraph" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin-left:54pt"><span style="font-size:14pt">8.<span style="font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:'Times New Roman'">
</span></span><span style="font-size:14pt">Panelists rarely apply trademark analysis to the registrant’s use of the domain name.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><b><span style="font-size:14pt"><u>UDRP Appeals Process</u>.<u></u></span></b></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:14pt">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. </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:14pt">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.</span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:14pt"> </span></p><p class="m_-4812327493733238524x_MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">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.</span></p></div><span id="m_-4812327493733238524OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><blockquote id="m_-4812327493733238524x_MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="border-left:#b5c4df 5 solid;padding:0 0 0 5;margin:0 0 0 5"></blockquote></span></div></div></blockquote></span></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></span></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>