[gnso-rpm-wg] Directly from INTA's website: What the TTAB has to say about sample size

Paul Tattersfield gpmgroup at gmail.com
Sat Sep 2 15:37:19 UTC 2017


The submission to the working group from WIPO citing the Ebola examples was
very poor. It would be impossible to use UDRP or URS in any form to solve
the cited examples since they did not involve the registration of an
infringing domain.

With respect to the mutual jurisdiction clause it should be noted it is a
benefit rather than a concession. Absent UDRP an IGO would be required to
waive not only jurisdictional immunity but also immunity from execution.

Best regards,


On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int>

> George,
> I am not seeking a reaction, but would like to nevertheless
> clarify/respond to an assertion you make in the context of the IGO curative
> rights WG, namely:
> "In another PDP (the IGO one), I didn't need to "take a survey" to debunk
> the position that some IGOs were taking, that they were unable to use the
> UDRP (because of the mutual jurisdiction clause, which could affect their
> claimed immunity). Do you know what won the day? Going out and doing
> research, and actually finding examples of UDRPs where IGOs expressly
> participated! Same for their claimed "inability to waive immunity" -- it's
> kind of funny how that argument was debunked, after a little bit of
> research brought to light examples of the World Bank (an IGO) filing
> lawsuits in US court. I could go on, and on, but if you want other
> examples, feel free to email me outside this list."
> You have not debunked anything.
> Indeed, IGOs, in responding to a request from the WG on which only you and
> a mere handful of others have participated (whether such participation by a
> few individuals with clear agendas represents a sound multistakeholder
> model is an altogether separate question) stated:
> "Submission to the UDRP and URS as currently drafted would necessitate
> waiving IGOs’ immunity from legal process, which would involve a specific
> decision taken at the highest levels of our governance structures."
> In other words, IGOs have not said they are categorically unable to use
> the UDRP, but that there are serious legal and institutional hurdles to
> doing so (at the least, sign off by the Office of Legal Counsel and
> Director General).
> Moreover, your research unearthing one or two instances in almost 20 years
> of the UDRP where one or two IGOs have opted to face those legal and
> institutional hurdles does not "debunk" the clear and unchanged position of
> IGOs.
> In that WG, when presented with evidence of abuse of IGO identities
> (there: on the heels of the Ebola crisis), rather than positively look for
> a solution that met the expressed needs of IGOs (not to mention GAC
> Advice), your WG has instead opted to "know better" and disregard
> legitimate concerns raised by IGOs -- there is nothing "funny" about this.
> Thank you for noting, and again, I am not looking for a reaction.
> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170902/ce601861/attachment.html>

More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list