<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><div>+1000</div><div><br></div><div>Nor has there been ANY evidence (whatsoever) that any IGO has forgone undertaking any UDRP because of its fear of waiver of its asserted Sovereign Immunity.</div><div><br></div><div>Indeed there is evidence of a number of instances in which IGOs have in fact pursued claims under the UDRP.</div><div><br></div><div>There is simply no factual basis for considering what the IGOs and GAC are presumably requesting.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>What is being proposed with the new “IGO arbitration” is spending thousands of hours of time to develop a “solution” for something that has not been identified as a problem.</div><div><br></div><div>I feel like I am hearing a young child scream “Daddy I want, Daddy I want” while seeing a horse for the first time and my having to repeatedly explain that it simply would not lit in our apartment.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Paul</div><div><br></div><span id="OLK_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 Tattersfield <<a href="mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com">gpmgroup@gmail.com</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 10:10 PM<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> Paul Keating <<a href="mailto:paul@law.es">paul@law.es</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc: </span> "Corwin, Philip" <<a href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com">pcorwin@verisign.com</a>>, "<a href="mailto:icann@leap.com">icann@leap.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:icann@leap.com">icann@leap.com</a>>, "<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Consolidated results of informal poll constituting preliminary consensus call on Options A-C<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;"><div dir="ltr"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Agreed and further it is only an implicit
waiver of jurisdictional immunity and as such it does not (attempt to) bind the
IGOs to any implied waiver of immunity from execution.<br><br>
Even before we get to that stage, the justifications for any immunity have not
been articulated.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">The IGOs are initiating the action through
their own volition.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><br>
They are looking to intervene in a private contract.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><br>
I can not find another forum in any jurisdiction, on any matter (not just
domain names), that would allow an IGO to initiate proceedings and subsequently claim
immunity in any follow-on proceedings.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><br>
Absent UDRP there are two possible ways the immunity question could come before
a court:<br><br>
(a) A TM owner seeks to acquire a domain which an IGO has registered<br>
(b) An IGO seeks to acquire a domain which a domain registrant has registered<br>
<br>
In (a) the IGO would be entitled to raise an immunity defence<br>
In (b) the IGO would be required to waive immunity for the court to consider
the matter.<br><br>
I appreciate this is a very precise legal point and even Prof. Swaine confused
this in his reasoning* but we as a working group have no excuse.<br><br>
Further the IGOs have failed to present any evidence that even if we build a
system that gives them every name they ask for automatically it will still not
solve the problem the IGOs are looking to solve.<br><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">So I have two questions: <span> </span><br><br>
(a) If the IGOs are not “entitled to immunity” after initiating proceedings in
any other forum why should they be in UDRP? <br><br>
(b) If the changes are not going to have any impact on the problems the IGOs
are looking to solve why should we even consider making a completely new
process?</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Yours sincerely,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Paul.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><br><br>
*In 3. Discussion (Page 8) Swaine says:<br><br>
"The core question is whether an IGO is “entitled to immunity,” but the
baseline assumptions may be disaggregated. An IGO’s immunity would be most
clearly at issue if the IGO had not itself initiated any related judicial
proceeding—since that would risk waiving any immunity to which it would be entitled,
including to counterclaims18—and the UDPRP’s Mutual Jurisdiction provision were
absent. This might be the case, for example, where a domain-name registrant has
sought a declaratory judgment in relation to some actual or potential
infringement by an IGO. Although that is not the scenario of principal concern
here, imagining that scenario usefully isolates the question as to whether an
IGO has a legitimate expectation that it would be entitled to immunity absent
the UDRP and its concessions. If such immunity is minimal or uncertain, then
any compromises required by the UDRP loom less large; if the IGO would
otherwise be entitled to immunity, however, its potential sacrifice seems more
substantial."</span></p></div></blockquote></span></body></html>