[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Deadline for comments to draft letter/questions on IGO immunity

[Mary Wong]

Dear WG members,

As noted on the WG call that was just held, please submit any further
comments that you or your group may have regarding the proposed set of
questions on IGO immunity by 1700 UTC tomorrow (Thursday 11 June). This
will allow the WG co-chairs and staff to collate your comments and prepare
a final draft for circulation by next week. As such, if you have limited
time, we would suggest that you focus on the specific questions in the
document.

For your convenience, I attach the following: (1) the original draft as
proposed by the WG co-chairs; and (2) a clean (all suggested revisions
accepted) version of Paul Keating¹s edited version.

Thanks to George, Jim and Paul for their helpful suggestions, both on the
call today and via email.

Cheers
Mary


Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
Email: mary.wong at icann.org




-----Original Message-----
From: George Kirikos <icann at leap.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 09:18
To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: Suggestions and revisions to
proposed	letter

>I generally agree with the proposed revisions suggested by Paul
>Keating. A few small tweaks might be:
>
>1. page 1: the UDRP Rules have been updated slightly since 1999, to
>reflect electronic filing and to clarify locking of domains during a
>dispute, so the link should be to either:
>
>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rules-be-2012-02-25-en (current)
>
>or
>
>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/udrp-rules-2015-03-11-en (which
>takes effect shortly)
>
>2. one might add on page 2, in addition to "without in-person hearings
>or oral testimony", that it's without Discovery and without
>cross-examinations of parties/witnesses, either.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>George Kirikos
>416-588-0269
>http://www.leap.com/
>
>
>
>On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Paul Keating <Paul at law.es> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Paul Keating <paul at law.es>
>> Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 2:10 PM
>> To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
>> Cc: Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>
>> Subject: Suggestions and revisions to proposed letter
>>
>> Dear Mary and Phil,
>>
>> Thank you for sending out the original.  It obviously shows a great
>>deal of
>> work.   Please do not consider my suggestions as an affront to the hard
>>work
>> that went into the original draft.
>>
>> Attached please find my suggested revisions to the proposed letter
>>seeking
>> legal advice.  In most cases I was attempting to provide more
>>specificity
>> and avoid any expression pif  opinion other than the historical
>>consensus of
>> the WG.  For example, we have no direct communications from IGOs
>>regarding
>> this issue.  Instead we are relying entirely upon what ICANN has told us
>> that they have said to the GAC.
>>
>> In other matters,  I have imbedded several comments but not in each
>> instance.
>>
>> For example, I removed much of the part about the Ter-6 process.  First,
>> under the UDRP/URS, a complainant need only show a trademark in 1
>> jurisdiction.  Thus it is not relevant that the US, for example, may not
>> recognize an IGO trademark ­ it is sufficient if one Convention
>>signatory
>> does.  Second, the process by which WIPO notifies, etc is not really
>>germane
>> to the immunity issue.
>>
>> I have also removed the language referencing any "appeal" as the UDRP
>>has no
>> such mechanism and the "appeal" process in the URS is purely internal in
>> nature and is not relevant to the issue of litigation immunity.
>>
>> I have also removed the language referencing post-UDRP litigation as
>>rare.
>> This should not enter into the scope of our assessment.
>>
>> As to the questions, I had some major issues in that they seemed to be
>> extremely leading in nature and structured in a way that would encourage
>> "book writing" and not the more pointed advice we are seeking.
>>
>> The attached is redlined and the specific changes can be seen by
>>altering
>> the  presentation  format of the document.  I would appreciate your
>> circulating this among the WG members.
>>
>> There are lots of suggested changes and I hope it is not all overboard.
>> I
>> am reminded of the joke that given the Bible and a red pen, any lawyer
>>will
>> make changesŠŠŠŠŠ.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Paul Raynor Keating, Esq.
>>
>> Law.es
>>
>> Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain)
>>
>> Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK)
>>
>> Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US)
>>
>> Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810
>>
>> Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450
>>
>> Skype: Prk-Spain
>>
>> email:  Paul at law.es
>>
>>
>>
>> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN
>> INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE.
>>THE
>> INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO
>>WHOM
>> IT IS ADDRESSED.  IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF
>> PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO  PLEASE DELETE
>>THE
>> EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS.
>>
>>
>>
>> Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department
>>rules
>> governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained
>> herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to
>>be
>> used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of
>>avoiding
>> any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may
>>not be
>> used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with
>>promoting,
>> marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter
>> addressed herein.
>>
>>
>>
>> NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN
>> ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH
>>THIS
>> FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT,
>> WHICH THIS IS NOT.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING
>>CONTAINED
>> HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
>_______________________________________________
>Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Background Questions for Legal Expert on IGO Immunity - as reviewed by WG co-chairs.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 35208 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20150610/13e3a26d/BackgroundQuestionsforLegalExpertonIGOImmunity-asreviewedbyWGco-chairs-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Keating edits - Questions to Legal Expert on IGO Immunity - CLEAN.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 36986 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20150610/13e3a26d/Keatingedits-QuestionstoLegalExpertonIGOImmunity-CLEAN-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5044 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20150610/13e3a26d/smime-0001.p7s>