[gnso-rpm-wg] PDDRP topics -- limitation period to bring a PDDRP

Wed Jul 20 20:06:52 UTC 2016

Actually, just to followup on my prior comment, the jurisdiction question
is a bit more complex for the PDDRP than I earlier indicated. The actual
PDDRP policy

https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/pddrp
https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/pddrp-04jun12-en.pdf

mentions "court of competent jurisdiction challenging the Expert
Determination of liability against the registry operator" in section 21.3

However, if you scroll down on that page, there's a newer document (PDF is
undated) from October 2013 with the exact rules of the procedure.

https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/pddrp-rules-15oct13-en.pdf

Those rules *do* mention a specific jurisdiction, as per section 3(b)(x),
namely:  "Complainant will submit, with respect to any challenges to a
decision in the administrative proceeding, to the jurisdiction of the
courts where the Registry has its principle place of business".

So, if we add a limitation period to the PDDRP, it should be that of the
location of the Registry.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 2:26 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:

> Steve brings up (indirectly) an interesting topic, namely that there is no
> "mutual jurisdiction" clause to the PDDRP (21.3 only says a "court of
> competent jurisdiction"). If a complaint (or appeal) was brought by one
> side in a jurisdiction that the other side doesn't accept, how would it be
> resolved?
>
> Obviously it would have to be resolved by the court in which the law suit
> was brought (i.e as a defense to the action) and/or some other "superior"
> jurisdiction. [Perhaps some of the registrars, who have similar "court of
> competent jurisdiction" language in their registrar agreements might want
> to chime in......I hope that Tucows, for example, would ignore any orders
> from a Turkish or Iranian court for a Canadian or US-based registrant who
> obeys Canadian/US laws.]
>
> So, if we modified the time limit in the manner he suggests, we have to be
> very careful to phrase things in such a manner as to not assume that a
> certain jurisdiction's time limits would actually apply. i.e. the location
> of the registry operator would definitely be a valid jurisdiction to bring
> an action against them. The preferred location of the TM holder / PDDRP
> complainant may or may not be a valid jurisdiction.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Steve Levy <slevy at accentlawgroup.com>
> wrote:
>
>> George,
>>
>> I understand the foundation of your idea - that parties should not have
>> greater rights through the PDDRP than they would in a court of law.  But,
>> by the same token, they shouldn't have lesser rights either.
>>
>> As such, I suggest revising your recommendation so that any time limit
>> for bringing a PDDRP claim would be the longer of the applicable statute of
>> limitations for such a claim in the complainant’s or respondent's
>>  jurisdictions if such claim were to have been brought in the courts.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Steve
>>
>> Steven M. Levy, Esq.
>>
>> *Accent Law Group, Inc.*
>> 301 Fulton St.
>> Philadelphia, PA 19147
>>
>> United States
>>
>> Phone: +1-215-327-9094
>> Email: slevy at AccentLawGroup.com <slevy at accentlawgroup.com>
>>
>> Website: www.AccentLawGroup.com <http://www.accentlawgroup.com/>
>>
>> <http://www.accentlawgroup.com/>LinkedIn:
>> www.linkedin.com/in/stevelevy43a/
>> ________________________________________
>> Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain
>> information that is confidential and protected by the attorney/client or
>> other privileges. It constitutes non-public information intended to be
>> conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of
>> this communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or agent of
>> the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended
>> recipient, or you believe that you have received this communication in
>> error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly
>> delete this e-mail, including attachments without reading or saving them in
>> any manner. The unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or
>> reproduction of this e-mail, including attachments, is prohibited and may
>> be unlawful. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not
>> a waiver of any attorney/client or other privilege.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/20/16, 1:49 PM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of George
>> Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org on behalf of icann at leap.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I don't think this was brought up before yet in the context of the
>> PDDRP, but perhaps it can be added to the list of topics.
>>
>> It would be very odd if complainants were allowed to bring a PDDRP for
>> a matter that was not able to be brought by them in a court of law,
>> because it was barred by the relevant statute of limitations. I think
>> amending the PDDRP to explicitly add a time limit for bringing a PDDRP
>> would make sense, to handle this situation. 2 years would be a
>> suitable limit, in my opinion, and would help ensure that complaints
>> are brought in a timely fashion.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> George Kirikos
>> 416-588-0269
>> http://www.leap.com/
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20160720/fd7451f1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Accent Law Logo NEW Very Small[4].png
Type: image/png
Size: 17053 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20160720/fd7451f1/AccentLawLogoNEWVerySmall4-0001.png>