[Ws2-jurisdiction] Employ Media LLC case summary

Wed Apr 19 06:30:34 UTC 2017

I'd like to make the following submissions.

1. Non-proprietary formats

Not everyone uses Microsoft Windows. I would request that ICANN and the 
community respect this, by please avoid proprietary formats such as .DOC 
or .DOCX in favour of standard formats such as PDF. Furthermore 
.DOC/DOCX are a security risk as they are susceptible to macroviruses.

2. On the content, it is important to note that the claims of estoppel 
and/or laches (which were not adjudicated in this case) do not form part 
of contract law.

In fact they are not legal doctrines at all in the strict sense of the 
meaning he words 'law' and 'legal' in common-law jurisdictions. They are 
part of Equity, which although in most places (I think Virginia was the 
last) are adjudicated in the same courts, is a separate system of law, 
deriving from medieval religious law.

So far, so irrelevant.

But what is very definitely not irrelevant is that equitable rules are 
not enforceable in the same way as legal rules.

They are discretionary.

I cam across this quote from Hegel

“Equity involves a departure from formal rights owing to moral or other 
considerations and is concerned primarily with the content of the 
lawsuit. A court of equity, however, comes to mean a court which decides 
in a single case without insisting on the formalities if a legal process 
or, in particular, on the objective evidence which the letter of the law 
may require. Further, it decides on the merits of the single case as a 
unique one, not with a view to disposing of it in such a way as to 
create a binding legal precedent for the future."

Of course 'discretion' does not mean freedom to act arbitrarily. But 
what does this mean for jurisdiction?

There has been much discussion in the UDRP process about whether 
estoppel in particular can be relied upon. Whilst much of this is 
inconclusive, I would suggest that anyone who wishes to rely on estoppel 
should file in court, not IRP.

And finally, this discussion is on a Claim of equitable principles in an 
IRP which was not found necessary to be decided upon.

It's a thin gruel on which to base a discussion of jurisidictional 
principle in my view.

On 18/04/17 21:54, Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX wrote:
> As a follow up from the call, and to answer the question raised by some
> regarding the settlement of the case:
>
> As a reminder on the facts of the dispute,It was claimed by ICANN that
> certain .jobs registrants did not comply with the requirements set out in
> the registry charter and that Employ Media, the registry, has proceeded
> with a unilateral broadening of the charter. Boiling it down, the dispute
> focused on how to interpret the list of requirements set out in the
> charter, as they were not all factually mutually exclusive (it was
> eventually possible to imply the satisfaction of some requirements from the
> satisfaction of some others)
>
> ICANN and Employ Media settled on the basis of representations made by the
> sponsor of .jobs (the Society for Human Rights Management), to the effect
> that, among others, it would ensure that registrants provide the necessary
> representations with regards to their own compliance with the requirements
> of the charter. The letter provided by SHRM states that it believes all
> currently registered names comply with the charter.
>
> In that sense, it would be difficult to determine a clear winner in this
> case, while ICANN did not "back off," no names had to be deregistered as a
> result of the settlement. In a way, the sponsor seems to have stepped in
> and vouched for the actions of Employ Media.
>
> I have amended the case report with this information. The new version is
> attached here.
>
> Best,
>
>
> 2017-04-18 8:22 GMT+02:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>:
>
>> All,
>>
>> I encourage you to review this case summary as well (which alsol has now
>> been on our list nearly two weeks) and reply with any observations or
>> questions you may have.
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>> *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428
>> S: gsshatan
>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Raphaël BEAUREGARD-LACROIX <
>> raphael.beauregardlacroix at sciencespo.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> You will find attached the summary for Employ Media LLC v ICANN, an ICC
>>> arbitration case that was ultimately settled.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> --
>>> Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix
>>> Sciences Po Law School 2014-2017
>>> LinkedIn
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rapha%C3%ABl-beauregard-lacroix-88733786/>
>>> - @rbl0012 <https://twitter.com/rbl0112> - M: +33 7 86 39 18 15
>>> <+33%207%2086%2039%2018%2015>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
>>> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-jurisdiction mailing list
> Ws2-jurisdiction at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-jurisdiction
>