[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June
Rudi Vansnick (NPOC)
rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
Fri Jun 12 18:27:35 UTC 2015
Dear all,
I joined recently this working group, replacing Lori Schulman who is now member of the IPC.
Not being a lawyer and just stepped in the WG, I’m confident the proposed document is in line with the expectations of the group.
A redlined version would help seeing the comments and modifications entered in the previous version.
Kind regards,
Rudi Vansnick
Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC)
www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
> Op 12-jun.-2015, om 19:32 heeft Paul Keating <Paul at law.es> het volgende geschreven:
>
> Just FYI, I am fine with my letter with Jim's comment and George's edit as noted by Jim in his last email. Perhaps ICANN staff could volunteer to re-assemble a clean copy with those changes noted for re-circulation. It can be difficult at times to trace all of the various changes.
>
> PRK
>
> From: Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2015 6:24 PM
> To: Paul Keating <paul at law.es <mailto:paul at law.es>>, "Bikoff, James" <jbikoff at sgrlaw.com <mailto:jbikoff at sgrlaw.com>>, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>>
> Subject: RE: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June
>
>> It’s good to see our WG members so actively engaged.
>>
>> When those who are refining the draft feel they have reached a consensus can you please circulate it in that form for Co-Chair and staff review? thanks
>>
>> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
>> Virtualaw LLC
>> 1155 F Street, NW
>> Suite 1050
>> Washington, DC 20004
>> 202-559-8597/Direct
>> 202-559-8750/Fax
>> 202-255-6172/cell
>>
>> Twitter: @VlawDC
>>
>> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>>
>> From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Paul Keating
>> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 8:25 AM
>> To: Bikoff, James; gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June
>>
>> Jim,
>>
>> Excellent edits. I agree with them entirely with the exception of the following comments.
>>
>> Your Comment 1. I think is important guidance that making it clear that litigation is an available option at any time and that panelists are not required to stay or dismiss a UDRP/URS in favor of litigation. As an aside, while I have not seen such treatment following a UDRP, I do note that in the DRS realm, post DRS litigation is prohibited by the decision in the Emirates case.
>>
>> Your Comment 2. I think it may be important to the expert that IGOs affirmatively seek trademark-like protection under the Convention. In fact we may also point out they are of course free to formally register marks under national laws AND that they may also assert common law t trademark rights in the context of a UDRP.
>>
>> Thus, perhaps we co ild add something such as the following:
>>
>> "IGOs also remain free to pursue traditional trademark registration under national registration systems. In the UDRP context, a complainant may rely upon either a registered trademark or common law trademark rights.
>>
>> Your Comment 3. Excellent point. I think the question duplicates the 1st and should be deleted. Our only concern is the UDRP/URS context. Whether or not immunity is waived by merely asserting trademark rights in a (non-UDRP/URS) demand is not relevant to our work.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> From: "Bikoff, James" <jbikoff at sgrlaw.com <mailto:jbikoff at sgrlaw.com>>
>> Date: Thursday, June 11, 2015 11:48 PM
>> To: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>>
>> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FW: Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June
>>
>>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> Attached are our suggestions. As it appears that most, if not all, of us agree with comments made by Paul, we’ve based our comments on his version.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>>
>>> From:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Poncelet Ileleji
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:28 AM
>>> To: Jay Chapman
>>> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org <mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Agenda and documents for next WG call on Wednesday 10 June
>>>
>>> Same here I concur with George
>>>
>>> Kind Regards
>>>
>>> Poncelet.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11 June 2015 at 14:25, Jay Chapman <jay at digimedia.com <mailto:jay at digimedia.com>> wrote:
>>> I agree with George as well.
>>> Jay
>>> On Jun 10, 2015 8:35 AM, "Paul Keating" <Paul at law.es <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:416-588-0269>
>>> >http://www.leap.com/ <http://www.leap.com/>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto: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 <tel:%2B1%20603%20574%204889>
>>> >> Email: mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>>> >> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
>>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp>
>>> >_______________________________________________
>>> >Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>>> >Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
>>> >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
>>> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>> Coordinator
>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
>>> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
>>> www.aficta.org <http://www.aficta.org/>
>>> www.itag.gm <http://www.itag.gm/>
>>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
>>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> James L. Bikoff <http://www.sgrlaw.com/attorneys/profiles/bikoff-james/> | Attorney at Law
>>>
>>> 202-263-4341 phone
>>> 202-263-4329 fax
>>> www.sgrlaw.com <http://www.sgrlaw.com/>
>>> jbikoff at sgrlaw.com <mailto:jbikoff at sgrlaw.com>
>>>
>>> 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
>>> Suite 400
>>> Washington, D.C. 20007
>>>
>>>
>>> <image001.jpg> <http://www.sgrlaw.com/> Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP
>>>
>>> Confidentiality Notice
>>> This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
>>> _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp>
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/>
>> Version: 2015.0.5941 / Virus Database: 4354/9872 - Release Date: 05/26/15
>> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> <image001.jpg>_______________________________________________
> 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/20150612/3b9e25e0/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-igo-ingo-crp
mailing list