[gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP participants?

Thu Jun 7 18:36:09 UTC 2018

Let's imagine a scenario where a different co-chair retaliated against a
different member of this PDP. I would want to know, instead of having it
swept under the rug. Transparency is important.

Sincerely,

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

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:25 PM, Phillip Marano <Phil at winterfeldt.law> wrote:

> I fail to see how any of these ad hominem allegations are actually
> relevant to the current substantive focus of this WG.
>
>
>
> If folks have grievances with particular individuals, then they should
> pursue the proper channels for complaints (we’ve already filed at least one
> and will likely now file yet another), rather than engage in numerous
> disruptive and distracting emails to the entire WG.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Phil
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> [image:
> https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b113a1d2a61b_WIPG_LogoMark.png]
> <https://www.winterfeldt.law/>
>
> *Phillip V. Marano*
>
> Senior Associate
>
> Winterfeldt IP Group
>
> 1200 17th St NW, Ste 501
>
> Washington, DC  20036
>
> phil at winterfeldt.law
>
> +1 202.759.5834
>
>
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the
> use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have
> received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are
> not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this
> e-mail.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Nahitchevansky,
> Georges
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 7, 2018 2:14 PM
> *To:* George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>
>
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP
> participants?
>
>
>
> As you would say, nice try George.  The cases are vastly different.  Your
> case has no significance.  It is simply a default judgment and from what I
> can tell does not look to have had anywhere near the evidence submitted and
> arguments made as what was involved in Parvi.  Personally I did not say
> Parvi belongs on the WIPO page.  However, I can understand why that case
> would be on the page given that it touched on an issue and did something
> that no other court had done up to then.  Your case has none of that and is
> simply a garden variety, run of the mill default.  There is nothing that
> warrants it being on a page that concerns meaningful decisions.  There are
> hundreds of other cases that involve defaults that are similarly situated
> to your case and are not that meaningful.  Like I said, if you want to have
> a page that lists every domain name related lawsuit ever, then get ICANN to
> create such a page or, alternatively, hire some research assistants and put
> together a list of the hundreds of lawsuits out there and get it posted on
> ICANN or some other venue.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 7, 2018 1:54 PM
> *To:* Nahitchevansky, Georges <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP
> participants?
>
>
>
> Georges:
>
> My company's court case also had an actual oral hearing before the judge:
>
> http://www.loffs.com//pupa/Pupa-Order-March-11-2013.pdf
> <http://www.loffs.com/pupa/Pupa-Order-March-11-2013.pdf>
>
> "and on hearing the submissions of counsel"
>
> I know, because I have the legal bills for my law firm's attendance at
> court. My case also had an award of costs (there are no statutory damages
> for a case of this type in my jurisdiction).
>
> Why don't you take a look at the the judgment of the Parvi.org case that
> you stated belongs on that page:
>
> http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/parvi-order.pdf
>
> and contrast it with the judgment for the Pupa.com case above. I'm glad
> that you agree with me that Parvi.org has significance (and belongs on that
> page). So does the Pupa.com case.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
>
> http://www.leap.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges <
> ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
>
> George K
>
>
>
> Parvi.org is a very very different case from your case.  There was an
> actual hearing in that case with evidence presented, arguments made etc.
> The case has significance because it was, as far as I know, the first case
> where a court awarded statutory damages to the domain owner for what the
> court found to be reverse domain name hijacking.  Ask Paul K and John B to
> explain this to you.  Your case had none of that and has had no
> significance anywhere near Parvi.org. It is like hundreds of other cases
> involving a run of the mill default. Again the WIPO page is meant to
> provide meaningful cases.
>
>
>
> *From:* icann at leap.com
>
> *Sent:* June 7, 2018 12:29 PM
>
> *To:* ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com
>
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP
> participants?
>
>
>
> Georges:
>
> Nice try, but Parvi.org is a default judgment, but is included, and is
> even explicitly labelled as such!
>
> http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
>
> This was petty retaliation by WIPO, plain and simple. I'm sure you
> scored some points with them coming to their aid. Are folks too scared
> to speak out on my side, because they fear similar retaliation against
> them?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269 <4165880269>
> http://www.leap.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Nahitchevansky, Georges
> <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com> wrote:
> > George K
> >
> > I think this is getting way into weeds, too personal and not
> productive.  In your Pupa.com case, you filed a lawsuit in Ontario after
> the UDRP was filed.  The defendant (who had filed the UDRP) apparently did
> not make an appearance in the lawsuit you filed.  Your attorneys then filed
> for a default judgment that was granted -- particularly because nobody
> contested the matter.  This is hardly a fully litigated case where a judge
> has submissions from both parties and then rules on the merits.  I believe
> the idea behind the WIPO page is to have cases that were litigated by the
> parties (who both appeared) and where the court issued a decision.  Just so
> you know, there are dozens of cases where parties have filed lawsuits
> against a party who registered a domain name and/or who won a UDRP that
> resulted in defaults.  In my mind, those cases are not the type case that
> typically brings any real learning as to whether there has been a bad faith
> use or registration of a domain name.  Like settlements, which often
> involve business decisions, sometimes parties default in lawsuits --
> particularly, where, as in your case the costs could be high and the domain
> name may ultimately not be worth the effort.  There are many entities that
> may make the business decision that since they have no connection to the
> forum (e.g., they do no business in the country in question and have no
> presence there), they don't want to spend the money and thus simply
> default.  So, in my view, I would not read your case as being particularly
> meaningful as to the merits as there was no real litigation with briefs and
> evidence submitted by both sides. So while you might want your case
> highlighted for personal reasons, I don't really think it belongs on the
> page if the page is meant to dedicated to fully litigated cases where the
> parties both appeared and then resulted in a court decision (e.g.
> Barcelona.com).
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of George
> Kirikos
> > Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 11:55 AM
> > To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> > Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] WIPO retaliation -- danger for RPM PDP
> participants?
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I draw folks' attention to the page at:
> >
> > http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
> >
> > which had been a topic of discussion on this mailing list before. I was
> shocked to see that it has recently been edited to remove one additional
> case, namely the court case involving my own company (Leap of Faith
> Financial Services Inc.), defending the Pupa.com domain name.
> > Attached are 2 PDFs, one generated today (June 7, 2018) and one
> generated a month ago (May 4, 2018). The Pupa.com case is the 2nd case in
> the May 4, 2018 PDF, but has been erased from the version from today.
> >
> > No other changes were made.
> >
> > I perceive this as direct retaliation by WIPO for my lack of support of
> Brian Beckham's candidacy for co-chair in this PDP. There can be no other
> reasonable explanation, given the timing of this removal.
> >
> > This retaliation by WIPO also says to members of this PDP that if they
> disagree with a position taken by WIPO, that there could be consequences,
> just as has happened here to my company. That is very dangerous.
> >
> > This petty action by WIPO reinforces my previously-stated opposition to
> Brian Beckham's candidacy as co-chair of this PDP, where I raised the issue
> of non-neutrality. It calls into question the entire legitimacy of future
> policy choices by this working group, if members of this PDP perceive that
> they could face retaliation too. The chilling effect of this action by WIPO
> is obvious.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > George Kirikos
> > 416-588-0269 <4165880269>
> > http://www.leap.com/
> > _______________________________________________
> > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> > gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Confidentiality Notice:
> > This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the
> meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
> 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by
> the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may
> contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney
> work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure,
> copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or
> attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us
> immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500 <4048156500>, and destroy
> the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in
> any manner.
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal
> tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is
> not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of
> (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting,
> marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
> addressed herein.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180607/1a931b6d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7718 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20180607/1a931b6d/image002-0001.png>