[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June

[Jay Chapman]

I agree with George as well.

Jay
On Jun 10, 2015 8:35 AM, "Paul Keating" <Paul at law.es> wrote:

> I agree with George on these which is why my suggested revisions removed
> these proposed questions.
>
> PRK
>
> On 6/10/15 2:09 PM, "George Kirikos" <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>
> >For point/question #3, in particular:
> >
> >"What if the Mutual Jurisdiction requirement specified that, to apply
> >to IGOs, it has to be a jurisdiction of one of its member states?"
> >
> >I don't see how this could ever be acceptable to registrants. For
> >example, for a North American registrant using a North American
> >registrar, an IGO consisting of member states from Iran, Iraq, Syria
> >and Turkey might place the "mutual jurisdiction" in one of those 4
> >countries that have absolutely nothing to do with the registrant,
> >rather than in North America.
> >
> >The same would apply to the rest of point #3, i.e. allowing the IGO to
> >"forum shop" by selecting a jurisdiction of a member state. For a
> >court to even have jurisdiction over a registrant, there must be some
> >connection to the underlying dispute and parties. That has normally
> >been (a) location of registrant, (b) location of registrar, or (c)
> >location of registry operator.
> >
> >I know these are just 'exploratory' questions, but I don't see why any
> >legitimacy should be attached to ad hoc proposals like the above by
> >submitting them to 'experts' in the first place. This should be about
> >fact-finding, not an informal 'negotiation' with IGOs.
> >Conclusions/solutions should flow from the facts. Putting out possible
> >'solutions' first, and then trying to come up with some 'rationale' to
> >justify them later is the wrong way to do things, in my opinion.
> >
> >Sincerely,
> >
> >George Kirikos
> >416-588-0269
> >http://www.leap.com/
> >
> >
> >On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
> >> Dear WG members,
> >>
> >> The proposed agenda for our next meeting, scheduled for Wednesday 10
> >>June,
> >> is as follows:
> >>
> >> Roll call/updates to SOI
> >> Discuss and finalize questions for independent legal expert (see
> >>attached
> >> for draft document from the WG co-chairs)
> >> Planning for WG meeting in Buenos Aires/next steps
> >>
> >>
> >> It may be that we will not need the full hour; however, Petter and Phil
> >> would like the group to have this call prior to the open meeting we are
> >> scheduled to have in Buenos Aires, on Wednesday 24 June at 10.00 a.m.
> >>ART
> >> (local time). For those WG members who will not be present in Buenos
> >>Aires,
> >> the usual remote participation facilities will be available, and we¹ll
> >>send
> >> call-in and other details prior to the date.
> >>
> >> Thanks and 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20150611/d708ef0f/attachment.html>