[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] [Ntfy-gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Our next meeting and Result of consensus Call: IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG meeting on Tuesday, 12 June 2018 16:00 UTC

[Petter Rindforth]

Thanks, David.

I'll add it to that document.


I'll wait closer to our meeting though, just to make sure that all WG members can check the list and notify of needed corrections related to their e-mailed positions.
Best,
Petter

-- 
Petter Rindforth, LL M





Fenix Legal KB
Stureplan 4c, 4tr
114 35 Stockholm
Sweden
Fax: +46(0)8-4631010
Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360
E-mail: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu
www.fenixlegal.eu

NOTICE
This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed.
It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read,
copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains.
Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail.
Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu
Thank you


10 juni 2018 18:22:37 +02:00, skrev David W. Maher <dmaher at pir.org>:

> Petter:
> You did not record the positions that I emailed on May 26:
> I support the four recommendations. My support of recommendation 4 is reluctant; in principle I am not in favor of special treatment for any participant in a UDRP or URS proceeding. In this case, referral of the question to the IC ANN Board is an acceptable compromise that fulfills one of the group’s obligations under our charter.
> I support Option 1. I understand staff’s concern “that resolving a procedural question (immunity from jurisdiction) can automatically reverse a substantive panel finding, where the court has not had (and will not have) the opportunity to hear the case on its merits.” This problem will only arise if an IGO takes advantage of a UDRP or URS proceeding and then hides behind immunity. It appears from this group’s discussions that IGOs have had few or no problems in supporting their names and acronyms in court and administrative proceedings. For future proceedings, I believe it is justifiable to bar IGOs from invoking an intrinsically unfair legal maneuver.
> I do not support Options 2 and 3. I do not believe that the deliberations of this group have shown any need for a new procedure.
> I do not support Option 4. I initially supported this option, but, on reflection, I believe our report and recommendations (assuming that Options 2-6 are not supported) fulfill our obligations under our charter, and there is no need for a referral to another WG.
> I do not support Option 5. I have seen no evidence to support the need for a procedural rule that would have limited applicability in courts around the world.
> I do not support Option 6. Adding mediation to the UDRP procedures should be a question for the RPM WG. The second sentence of this option appears to duplicate Option 1.
> 
> David W. Maher
> Public Interest Registry
> Senior Vice-President – Law & Policy
> +1 312 375 4849
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180610/299678b1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 20169 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180610/299678b1/attachment-0001.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 6210 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180610/299678b1/attachment-0001.png>