[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] An interesting UDRP brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission

[George Kirikos]

Correct, the immunity issue isn't really engaged in this case.

The issues that are illustrated are:

1. public interest -- "we're a special snowflake, and so we require
special rules tailored for us because all the good we do in the word"
-- same could be said about the SEC,  but they could live with the
UDRP. Public interest argument of IGOs is thus answered.

2. fees -- "UDRP costs divert precious resources from our special
mission" -- same could be said about the SEC (and many others, both in
the public and private sectors), but the SEC didn't seek a subsidy
either. Fees argument of IGOs is also answered (although our report
did offer olive branches there).

Since those were 2 of the major themes in the IGOs' arguments, it
narrows things to immunity. I think our work on that, with Professor
Swaine's research as well as the workarounds we identified, is
stellar.

Sincerely,

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



On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
> Thanks for bringing this interesting case to our attention.
>
> One factor in the SEC's willingness to file this particular action might have been the ironclad assurance that any judicial appeal would be to a US Court.
>
> Best, Philip
>
> 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
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos
> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 10:39 AM
> To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] An interesting UDRP brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission
>
> Hi folks,
>
> There was an interesting UDRP brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission:
>
> http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2017-0200
>
> The SEC is an agency of the US government. While they are not an IGO (and we do have UDRP cases already with IGOs), and thus the "immunity"
> issue isn't engaged, it's useful as another demonstration that even government agencies are able to successfully use the UDRP.
>
> "Public interest" didn't "require" that a special process be created just for them, as the IGOs have repeatedly demanded. Nor did they seek a subsidy in fees (despite the US government's $20 trillion debt).
> They were able to successfully navigate the existing alternative dispute resolution procedures, although they could have also chosen to use the courts. They even appeared to have done so with internal representation, without spending on outside lawyers.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4769/14262 - Release Date: 04/07/17