[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] IGO-INGO; How to finalize our work and identify level of consensus

Mary Wong mary.wong at icann.org
Thu Jun 21 15:05:17 UTC 2018


Hello everyone,

As Paul had requested in a previous message that staff not merely reproduce excerpts from Professor Swaine’s memo, please allow us to provide a response. The fundamental point of substantive agreement seems to be whether it is the IGO that can be considered to have initiate the legal proceedings when it first files a complaint under the UDRP or URS. Our understanding of Paul’s position is that he believes this to be the case, and as such the IGO must necessarily be considered to have waived any jurisdictional immunity to which it may otherwise be entitled.

Our understanding, however, of legal process and of what we believe to have been Professor Swaine’s assumption, is that this may not be the case. The UDRP and URS are mandatory administrative proceedings that are separate from, and independent of, the judicial process. As such, when a losing respondent files suit in a national court, it is up to that court to determine whether and how to give any deference to the UDRP under its national laws (as well as consider if, to the extent the IGO decides to claim jurisdictional immunity from that court, such an immunity claim will be permitted under its national laws). The court filing by the losing respondent is not a direct appeal from the UDRP panel decision, and thus not a continuation of the UDRP proceeding but may be considered a separate legal filing.

While many jurisdictions may indeed rule that an IGO, having agreed to Mutual Jurisdiction, will therefore have given up any immunity, this is not necessarily or universally the case (as Professor Swaine acknowledged). To give a specific example, we believe that decisions in civil cases in Korean courts concerning enforcement of UDRP decisions are decided under the relevant Korean domestic laws based on Korean Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Best regards,
Mary & Steve

From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 10:24
To: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin at verisign.com>
Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] IGO-INGO; How to finalize our work and identify level of consensus

You claim you have proven in a single page that a 25-page analysis of the issue of IGO immunity in the context of judicial appeal of a UDRP decision, written by a professor of and expert in international law, is wrong. I disagree.

Its competence not office that matters, one of the big advantages of the multistakeholder model is it  can allow The Emperor’s New Clothes situations to come to light that would otherwise remain clothed in expert opinion. It is not helpful to simply say I am wrong. You should at least try to show why what I have said is wrong, as I have clearly, concisely and precisely done with the Swaine errors.

I’ll reply to each of the other points you raise, but it does rather play into a ruse to refuse to address the core issue and everyone then gets obstructed and deffered to anything but the question asked. Which then of course opens up the opportunity for a myriad of other tangential but ultimately fruitless lines of engagement thereby helping avoid the core issue for even longer.

There is no such thing as proof in application of regulation and law to specific fact situations. The law is not black and white but many shades of grey. The law is not a math equation with one single answer that can be proven, or a science experiment that can be replicated to prove a theorem. That is why every modern judicial system has a supreme judicial body to resolve the inconsistencies between lower court decisions applying the same law to similar facts. And even then, the “correct” answer can be determined by a single vote, as evidenced by the many 5-4 split decisions of the US Supreme Court.

We are here to make an existing framework more equitable not litigate it. What we are supposed to be doing is drafting the equivalence of statute. We need to be clear and concise, well intentioned and precise.

As I’ve already pointed out, the Swaine memo does not dictate any particular policy recommendation outcome, and parts of it can be relied upon by proponents of option 1 who believe that the UDRP’s reference to mutual jurisdiction trumps all other considerations. I respectfully dissent from that position and support option 3 because I believe that it is important to restrain ICANN from attempting to curb the legal rights of any party to a UDRP, registrant or IGO.

The problem is Swaine gives the impression it is relevant to what the working group has been asked to consider – whereas really, its irrelevant complexity confuses rather than clarifies.

I also support option 3 because I believe it has some chance of becoming ICANN policy and resolving this matter, while I cannot envision option 1 ever being approved by the ICANN Board even if it is passed forward from Council.

In your former role as co-chair this is called bias. This is one of the main reasons why this working group reached the point where it almost collapsed and we now have a significantly weaker final report which was predominantly drafted with the intention of supporting your preferred option. This is very bad because it fails to fully articulate the sound reasons behind the final consensus positions.

The Swaine memo is an informed and nuanced discussion of the central issue before this WG. It should be retained in our Final Report to inform Council and the Board of the complex legal issues relevant to the matter of IGO access to CRP, both when considering this WG’s Final Report and later on -- when this issue is revisited after it becomes clear that we have not produced a policy option acceptable to the GAC and IGOs or capable of achieving Board approval.
The multistakeholder working group model is about building and supporting consensus and it isn’t helpful when those leading a group will only contribute positively when it furthers their own agenda. We could easily have easily improved process to help IGOs & INGOs and at the same time improved it for registrants too, instead you chose to lead the working group on path to try and force through at all costs the ridiculous #3. - Very sad and not what the multistakeholder model was ever intended for.

Prove me wrong show me why my proof is wrong :-)

Original proof
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001202.html (.pdf with colours)
Expanded proof
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001310.html (.pdf with colours)

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 1:58 PM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com>> wrote:
Paul:

You claim you have proven in a single page that a 25-page analysis of the issue of IGO immunity in the context of judicial appeal of a UDRP decision, written by a professor of and expert in international law, is wrong. I disagree.

There is no such thing as proof in application of regulation and law to specific fact situations. The law is not black and white but many shades of grey. The law is not a math equation with one single answer that can be proven, or a science experiment that can be replicated to prove a theorem. That is why every modern judicial system has a supreme judicial body to resolve the inconsistencies between lower court decisions applying the same law to similar facts. And even then, the “correct” answer can be determined by a single vote, as evidenced by the many 5-4 split decisions of the US Supreme Court.

As I’ve already pointed out, the Swaine memo does not dictate any particular policy recommendation outcome, and parts of it can be relied upon by proponents of option 1 who believe that the UDRP’s reference to mutual jurisdiction trumps all other considerations. I respectfully dissent from that position and support option 3 because I believe that it is important to restrain ICANN from attempting to curb the legal rights of any party to a UDRP, registrant or IGO. I also support option 3 because I believe it has some chance of becoming ICANN policy and resolving this matter, while I cannot envision option 1 ever being approved by the ICANN Board even if it is passed forward from Council.

The Swaine memo is an informed and nuanced discussion of the central issue before this WG. It should be retained in our Final Report to inform Council and the Board of the complex legal issues relevant to the matter of IGO access to CRP, both when considering this WG’s Final Report and later on -- when this issue is revisited after it becomes clear that we have not produced a policy option acceptable to the GAC and IGOs or capable of achieving Board approval.

Philip

Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way [maps.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D12061-2BBluemont-2BWay-2B-250D-250AReston-2C-2BVA-2B20190-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=9szjeGTE5Lj_6br6eb5EDZXC0GpzOxeAjpU8U_DjC9k&s=Y7gnLMvPtKMwL7DWx3NDpSLfTR3ycfg5XBKcaP4Clf8&e=>
Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: Paul Tattersfield [mailto:gpmgroup at gmail.com<mailto:gpmgroup at gmail.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 3:35 AM
To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com>>
Cc: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>; gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] IGO-INGO; How to finalize our work and identify level of consensus

With all respect, in regard to your statement, “I have shown very clearly why the IGOs are never entitled to immunity after they have chosen to initiate proceedings in ANY forum”,

Yes that’s right.

and without even delving into the quality of your analysis, the fact that you believe an IGO would never succeed in an immunity defence in a judicial appeal from a UDRP filed by the losing registrant would not prevent any judge in any  court from finding to the contrary and dismissing the case.

Wrong - you are not understanding what I wrote and then attributing your own conclusion to me. Go read my proof and show me where I am wrong I don’t believe you can.

The disagreement within this working group is over what should happen in the event of that rare but nonetheless possible scenario.

Outside of the original co-chairs there is little disagreement, you should have the grace to respect that position.

Prof. Swaine was asked to inform us as to how a court would deal with such an immunity claim and the likely response from plaintiff domain registrant that the IGO had waived its immunity by filing a UDRP with knowledge of the mutual jurisdiction clause.

It is only the forum that makes the domain registrant a “plaintiff” on a claim that an IGO chose to initiate. That is the quirk of process. It is still the same principle matter. Whether the IGO chose to file a URDP or judicial proceedings the IGO is choosing to INTIATE proceedings.

His memo discussed the different analytical approaches that courts employ as well as the interplay with other factors, such as national laws addressing sovereign immunity. As Petter noted, he concluded that many courts would determine that immunity had been waived, but that case dismissal by some courts could not be ruled out.

The huge mistake Professor Swaine made was to analyze in great depth the scenario where an IGO is defending a claim and mistakenly assume that any rights to jurisdictional immunity there could be “transferred/applied” to the scenario where an IGO is initiating a claim.
My proof pinpoints very precisely where and how he made that error in his reasoning on page 8 of his memo.


The Swaine memo does not dictate any particular policy outcome within this WG, and it can likely be cited by those with differing views  on the key issue before us. It informed our consideration of the questions before us and should be included within the final report as a reference point, and only as that. If you think anything in it is wrong you are free to include that in a minority statement.


Swaine can never be relevant because the working group has not considered the case where an IGO is defending a UDRP brought against it by a TM owner. Swaine’s complexity confuses rather than clarifies and if you really must include it stick it in your minority report – it’s junk

It’s quite simple Phillip go and read my proof (it’s less than a page) and if you believe it is wrong show me where it is wrong. I don’t believe you can that is why you are squandering everyone’s time (again).

1 Original proof
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001202.html (.pdf with colours)
2 Expanded proof
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001310.html (.pdf with colours)

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:30 AM, Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com>> wrote:
Paul:

With all respect, in regard to your statement, “I have shown very clearly why the IGOs are never entitled to immunity after they have chosen to initiate proceedings in ANY forum”, and without even delving into the quality of your analysis, the fact that you believe an IGO would never succeed in an immunity defence in a judicial appeal from a UDRP filed by the losing registrant would not prevent any judge in any  court from finding to the contrary and dismissing the case. The disagreement within this working group is over what should happen in the event of that rare but nonetheless possible scenario.

Prof. Swaine was asked to inform us as to how a court would deal with such an immunity claim and the likely response from plaintiff domain registrant that the IGO had waived its immunity by filing a UDRP with knowledge of the mutual jurisdiction clause. His memo discussed the different analytical approaches that courts employ as well as the interplay with other factors, such as national laws addressing sovereign immunity. As Petter noted, he concluded that many courts would determine that immunity had been waived, but that case dismissal by some courts could not be ruled out.

The Swaine memo does not dictate any particular policy outcome within this WG, and it can likely be cited by those with differing views  on the key issue before us. It informed our consideration of the questions before us and should be included within the final report as a reference point, and only as that. If you think anything in it is wrong you are free to include that in a minority statement.

Philip

Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way [maps.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D12061-2BBluemont-2BWay-2B-250D-250AReston-2C-2BVA-2B20190-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=9szjeGTE5Lj_6br6eb5EDZXC0GpzOxeAjpU8U_DjC9k&s=Y7gnLMvPtKMwL7DWx3NDpSLfTR3ycfg5XBKcaP4Clf8&e=>
Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org>] On Behalf Of Paul Tattersfield
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2018 2:55 PM
To: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>
Cc: gnso-igo-ingo-. <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] IGO-INGO; How to finalize our work and identify level of consensus

Dear Petter,

The problem is the issue I am raising is overarching – I have shown very clearly why the IGOs are never entitled to immunity after they have chosen to initiate proceedings in ANY forum. I have also shown very precisely where Swaine went wrong in his reasoning.

Petter wrote:
“And I cannot see that Prof Swaine clearly states that IGO’s have the right to refer to their immunity. Instead, he states several times that the fact that an IGO has accepted a URS or UDRP case, is also likely to be seen as a waiver of their immunity. This seems especially related to UN: …”

This misses the point the IGOs are choosing to initiate proceedings. Professor Swaine has analysed the scenario where an IGO is defending an initial action and then assumed incorrectly that any immunity rights enjoyed where an IGO is defending an action can be “transferred/allocated/applied” to the scenario where an IGO brings an action as the plaintiff (or claimant). When the IGO is the initial plaintiff (or claimant) it is NEVER entitled to jurisdictional immunity.

I have responded to all of Mary’s points in this thread and in more detail to the other thread where Paul K. supported my concerns and David drew attention to the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property treaty.

Further I have reached out to as many people as possible inviting them to refute my reasoning and so far no one has been able to show how I am even slightly wrong including people who have represented IGO interests.

Please show me how my proof is anyway wrong….

Yours sincerely,


Paul.

Original proof
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001202.html (.pdf with colours)

Expanded proof
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001310.html (.pdf with colours)

On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 5:29 PM, Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>> wrote:
Dear Paul and WG Members,

As you all know, we had a call on February 16, 2016 to discuss Prof Swaine’s memo, and it was further discussed during 2016. I also tried to see from your (Paul) e-mails of December 2016 (especially of December 14, 2016), when we discussed the details of our Draft Initial Report that Mary had sent to our WG, but I could not find any specific note there by you on the report, other than suggestions to fix some typos in our DIR.

Prof Swaine’s memo and report is in fact a part of our work and report, to refer to. And I cannot see that Prof Swaine clearly states that IGO’s have the right to refer to their immunity. Instead, he states several times that the fact that an IGO has accepted a URS or UDRP case, is also likely to be seen as a waiver of their immunity. This seems especially related to UN:

“Article 2(2) of the General Convention, the UN’s absolute immunity from legal process (other than relative to execution) may be expressly waived in particular cases. National law may also resolve the matter. For example, the IOIA provides relevant IGOs with immunity (on the same terms as afforded states) “except to the extent that such organizations may expressly waive their immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract.”

What Prof Swaine however also points out, is the fact that all national law worldwide is not clear, and further that it is also up to each national court to decide to accept immunity or not, and especially IGO's that are not UN related has not the same exact position.

His conclusion was that the topic is not 100% clear (which ofcourse IGO's does not agree upon, as the same with you - however with two completely different views).

Option 3 has covered such possible situation, and made sure that also in (possible rare) cases where a national court accept immunity, the domain holder can at least have possibility to get the case decided by arbitration. (= This was my short personal note, knowing that the majority of the WG does not agree with establishing such solution).

To summarize:

We have Prof. Swaine’s report to refer to and that has for long time been a part of, and reference, related to our full report.

Paul, I appreciate your work with comments, and recommend that you prepare a Minority Statement in regard to the Swaine memo.

Also, a reminder to other WG members that support Options with no majority from the WG, please prepare your Minority Statements.

Finally:

Please focus on our Final Report and keep the suggestions within our WG mailing list. We are close to make a conclusion on each Recommendation and Option. It is better for us all to effectively conclude our work now in a friendly manner, and create our Final Report, that can then be further discussed by others.

Best regards,
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<mailto:petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>
www.fenixlegal.eu [fenixlegal.eu]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fenixlegal.eu&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=9szjeGTE5Lj_6br6eb5EDZXC0GpzOxeAjpU8U_DjC9k&s=xYbaX-5E41wnuzBsEV-GqiLYv2lEPucmqrjyOlYWWkY&e=>

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 [fenixlegal.eu]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fenixlegal.eu&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=9szjeGTE5Lj_6br6eb5EDZXC0GpzOxeAjpU8U_DjC9k&s=xYbaX-5E41wnuzBsEV-GqiLYv2lEPucmqrjyOlYWWkY&e=>
Thank you


15 juni 2018 13:28:59 +02:00, skrev Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup at gmail.com<mailto:gpmgroup at gmail.com>>:

Staff directs your attention to those parts of the memo where Professor Swaine writes as follows (emphasis added):




“ …the situation raises at least two distinct immunity issues. The first is whether, in principle, an IGO would enjoy immunity from judicial process with respect to name-related rights it might assert in the UDRP proceedings. The answer depends on whether jurisdiction in which the case arises would apply an absolute, functional, or restrictive immunity approach to the IGO in question. That may be hard to predict.

Wrong –  Immunity is only a defence where an IGO is a defendant NOT a claimant.  In the initial claim the IGO is the claimant whether it be a UDRP claim or a judicial claim.


In the United States, for example, unless an IGO benefits from broader treaty protections—as the United Nations, but not its specialized agencies, does, because the United States is only party to a treaty governing the former’s immunity—the question is addressed by the International Organizations Immunities Act (the IOIA), but some courts interpret the statute as establishing absolute immunity and others view it as establishing restrictive immunity only. The answer is a bit more straightforward elsewhere, and other states tend to favor either an absolute or a functional approach. The choice among these approaches would be material.

Yes immunity is complex, very complex, but it is not relevant because the IGO is the initiating the claim.

If an IGO is entitled to absolute immunity, it would in principle be protected from a suit of the kind in question, and probably under a functional approach as well—because an IGO’s protection of its name is likely to be deemed part of its functions. Immunity is less likely under a restrictive approach, which might regard this as more akin to trademark-related activity that is commercial in character.






The second, more relevant, question is whether—in light of an IGO’s assent to Mutual Jurisdiction, by virtue of its initiation of UDRP proceedings (or its registration of a domain name)—its immunity remains. Here, the more likely answer is that it would not.

Wrong, the mutual jurisdiction clause is a separate very high hurdle in a litigation strategy for an IGO. There is no immunity to remain – see above.

IGOs are capable of waiving their immunity from suit, and if they do so, they may no longer interpose immunity as a defense if another party commences a judicial action falling within the scope of that waiver. The grant of Mutual Jurisdiction should establish such a waiver, just as it would for a state entity otherwise entitled to immunity. This waiver would be construed narrowly, but it would likely permit proceeding against an IGO in at least some domestic courts.






The overall answer, then, is contingent.

Wrong – no it isn’t contingent there is no immunity to defend – see above

If there were no Mutual Jurisdiction clause, an IGO might be entitled to immunity to judicial process; if, on the other hand, the Mutual Jurisdiction clause were maintained, as in the status quo, the IGO’s immunity is less germane because it would have been waived. Equitable considerations might influence any judicial analysis …





Accordingly, an IGO complainant will have consented to judicial proceedings if a losing respondent wishes to challenge a cancellation or

—in a jurisdiction that the IGO will have selected, but from limited choices that the registrant can craft through its choice of registrar and its registering address … How matters unfold from that point will depend on national law.

This is a truism but is not relevant because there is no immunity to defend




In short, the Mutual Jurisdiction concession means that certain IGOs will have agreed to the possibility of a judicial process,
That’s right - that’s what the mutual jurisidiction clause is for, That is how it should be. If you make an allegation and ask a forum to rule on it to you have to be prepared to defend the allegation including counterclaims

notwithstanding any immunity to which they otherwise would be entitled.”



Wrong – there isn’t any immunity to defend – see above








As such, Professor Swaine seems to have acknowledged that, in many instances where a losing registrant files suit against a prevailing IGO in a national court, the court is likely to rule that the IGO will have waived its immunity. He also points out that this is not necessarily always the case as it may depend on the approach that national court takes toward the doctrine of IGO jurisdictional immunity. As staff has noted elsewhere, there is no single, universal, unified principle that determines the result across all national courts; and there is no single international treaty that applies to all IGOs and to which all states are party.



Thus, Professor Swaine’s expert legal opinion seems to us to be saying that while it is likely that in many jurisdictions an IGO will not succeed in claiming immunity from jurisdiction, this is not to be assumed as a certainty in all jurisdictions globally. It may be a rare case that an IGO succeeds, but it is at least a possibility in a few jurisdictions.


We trust this is sufficiently clear.




If you want to challenge my proof you need show in the text which I have included again below for completeness why I am wrong not quote from the report which based on the errors I am alleging.


Looking at what Professor Swaine said:

“The scope of IGO immunity would most clearly be at issue if the Mutual Jurisdiction provision were irrelevant and the IGO had not itself initiated judicial proceedings, since that would risk waiving any immunity to which it may be entitled, including to counterclaims.”

I think we can all agree that; initiating proceedings waives immunity including counterclaims.


“This might be the case, for example, if a domain-name registrant sought a declaratory judgment against an IGO in relation to some actual or potential infringement.”

I think we can all agree that; if a TM owner starts proceedings to acquire a domain which an IGO has registered then an IGO would be entitled to use jurisdictional immunity to prevent a hearing taking place.


“That scenario, though not otherwise of concern here, does usefully isolate the question as to whether an IGO has a legitimate expectation that it would be entitled to immunity absent the UDRP”

I think we can all agree that; the working group has not and will not consider the case where a TM owner starts proceedings against an IGO.


Here’s the problem

What Professor Swaine has done is say well he’s isolated a situation where an IGO would be entitled to claim an immunity defence absent UDRP so now he’s good to go for the rest of his report on immunity.

Wrong.

Just because Professor Swaine has identified a situation where an IGO is entitled to claim an immunity defence doesn’t mean he can then apply it to other situations.


Proof

Absent UDRP there are two possible ways the immunity question could come before a court:

(a) A TM owner seeks to acquire a domain which an IGO has registered
(b) An IGO seeks to acquire a domain which a domain registrant has registered

In (a) the IGO would be entitled to raise an immunity defence
In (b) the IGO would be required to waive immunity for the court to consider the matter.

As the UDRP is an administrative procedure to help take less complex cases out of the judicial system if UDRP is to afford the same protections as any other forum then UDRP needs to take into account both scenarios.

(a) A TM owner seeks to acquire a domain which an IGO has registered by bringing a UDRP
(b) An IGO seeks to acquire a domain which a domain registrant has registered by bringing a UDRP


Let’s confirm what is happening with colours:
Blue = An immunity defence is good to go
Red = An immunity defence is a no-no

Applying the logic Professor Swaine has used we have

(a) A TM owner seeks to acquire a domain which an IGO has registered by bringing a UDRP
(b) An IGO seeks to acquire a domain which a domain registrant has registered by bringing a UDRP

What Professor Swaine is asking the reader to accept is the right to an immunity defence can be applied to both (a) and (b) scenarios and this can not be right because

Absent UDRP we have

(a) A TM owner seeks to acquire a domain which an IGO has registered
(b) An IGO seeks to acquire a domain which a domain registrant has registered

So the correct position at UDRP is
(a) A TM owner seeks to acquire a domain which an IGO has registered by bringing a UDRP
(b) An IGO seeks to acquire a domain which a domain registrant has registered by bringing a UDRP


Quite simply the IGOs are never entitled to jurisdictional immunity after initiating proceedings.

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 11:02 AM, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>> wrote:

Hello again Paul and everyone,



Staff directs your attention to those parts of the memo where Professor Swaine writes as follows (emphasis added):



“ …the situation raises at least two distinct immunity issues. The first is whether, in principle, an IGO would enjoy immunity from judicial process with respect to name-related rights it might assert in the UDRP proceedings. The answer depends on whether jurisdiction in which the case arises would apply an absolute, functional, or restrictive immunity approach to the IGO in question. That may be hard to predict. In the United States, for example, unless an IGO benefits from broader treaty protections—as the United Nations, but not its specialized agencies, does, because the United States is only party to a treaty governing the former’s immunity—the question is addressed by the International Organizations Immunities Act (the IOIA), but some courts interpret the statute as establishing absolute immunity and others view it as establishing restrictive immunity only. The answer is a bit more straightforward elsewhere, and other states tend to favor either an absolute or a functional approach. The choice among these approaches would be material. If an IGO is entitled to absolute immunity, it would in principle be protected from a suit of the kind in question, and probably under a functional approach as well—because an IGO’s protection of its name is likely to be deemed part of its functions. Immunity is less likely under a restrictive approach, which might regard this as more akin to trademark-related activity that is commercial in character.



The second, more relevant, question is whether—in light of an IGO’s assent to Mutual Jurisdiction, by virtue of its initiation of UDRP proceedings (or its registration of a domain name)—its immunity remains. Here, the more likely answer is that it would not. IGOs are capable of waiving their immunity from suit, and if they do so, they may no longer interpose immunity as a defense if another party commences a judicial action falling within the scope of that waiver. The grant of Mutual Jurisdiction should establish such a waiver, just as it would for a state entity otherwise entitled to immunity. This waiver would be construed narrowly, but it would likely permit proceeding against an IGO in at least some domestic courts.



The overall answer, then, is contingent. If there were no Mutual Jurisdiction clause, an IGO might be entitled to immunity to judicial process; if, on the other hand, the Mutual Jurisdiction clause were maintained, as in the status quo, the IGO’s immunity is less germane because it would have been waived. Equitable considerations might influence any judicial analysis …



Accordingly, an IGO complainant will have consented to judicial proceedings if a losing respondent wishes to challenge a cancellation or

—in a jurisdiction that the IGO will have selected, but from limited choices that the registrant can craft through its choice of registrar and its registering address … How matters unfold from that point will depend on national law.



In short, the Mutual Jurisdiction concession means that certain IGOs will have agreed to the possibility of a judicial process, notwithstanding any immunity to which they otherwise would be entitled.”



As such, Professor Swaine seems to have acknowledged that, in many instances where a losing registrant files suit against a prevailing IGO in a national court, the court is likely to rule that the IGO will have waived its immunity. He also points out that this is not necessarily always the case as it may depend on the approach that national court takes toward the doctrine of IGO jurisdictional immunity. As staff has noted elsewhere, there is no single, universal, unified principle that determines the result across all national courts; and there is no single international treaty that applies to all IGOs and to which all states are party.



Thus, Professor Swaine’s expert legal opinion seems to us to be saying that while it is likely that in many jurisdictions an IGO will not succeed in claiming immunity from jurisdiction, this is not to be assumed as a certainty in all jurisdictions globally. It may be a rare case that an IGO succeeds, but it is at least a possibility in a few jurisdictions.



We trust this is sufficiently clear.



Best regards,

Mary & Steve



From: Gnso-igo-ingo-crp <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup at gmail.com<mailto:gpmgroup at gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, June 15, 2018 at 17:17
To: "petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>" <petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>>
Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo-." <gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] IGO-INGO; How to finalize our work and identify level of consensus



Dear Petter,

On Swaine I do not believe what you are proposing is acceptable. This isn’t some minor matter for a minority opinion Swaine underpins the whole of the working group’s final report. I have shown very clearly in plain language how Swaine introduces horrendously complex issues which have absolutely no relevance whatsoever to what the working group has been asked to consider.

Both Paul Keating & George Kirikos have both indicated they share my concerns that Swaine can never be considered correct on this matter and in the alternative no one has voiced any dissent to the expanded proof I outlined. The only person to offer any comments has been Mary and she did not address the core issue I was raising and has chosen so far not to dispute or comment further on the expanded proof. (For completeness Phillip said he was proud of Swaine)

You have chosen not to comment too. Do you also still personally believe what I am saying is wrong and that Swaine can possibly be correct in his findings?

If so please can you please explain to the working group how Swaine can possibly be correct because the report fails to adequately acknowledge or address the indisputable fact that IGOs automatically waive immunity every time they commence a legal proceeding?

Yours sincerely,


Paul.

Expanded proof
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-June/001310.html (.pdf with colours)

Original proof
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2018-May/001202.html (.pdf with colours)



On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 8:29 AM, Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu<mailto:petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>> wrote:

Dear Working Group members,



In light of the need for us to complete our work, in my role as the Chair, I ask you all to now focus on the task at hand, which is to finalize agreement on the appropriate consensus levels for each recommendation. In this regard, please note the following:



(1) I have put the most current, likely consensus levels here in this message and will appreciate further feedback;

(2) we need now also to focus on discussing where we want to end up in relation to Option 1 and Option 4, which may be mutually incompatible; and

(3) where you have made a suggestion on any specific point/topic but it has not received support, I ask that you consider filing a Minority Statement now rather than continue to argue the point.



On consensus levels, and based on our call earlier this week and the more recent list discussions:



Recommendation 1: Full Consensus (with additional text in the rationale about why this recommendation was phrased to cover INGOs, and noting that IGOs are covered by the remaining recommendations which nevertheless do not require changing the UDRP or URS beyond what may be necessary to effectuate those additional recommendations – I note that this last caveat may of course not be necessary if the group reaches consensus on Option 4 versus Option 1, as we are currently discussing).



Recommendation 2: Consensus (with slight amendment to the recommendation text to reflect “trademark or service mark rights” where we mention “unregistered” rights).



Recommendation 3: Consensus



Recommendation 4: Strong Support but Significant Opposition (with additional text in the rationale to note that several members are strongly against subsidies of any sort).



Recommendation 5/Options 1-6 (which we can renumber/title in the Final Report to avoid confusion):



Option 1 – Consensus or Strong Support but Significant Opposition

Option 2 – No Consensus/Divergence

Option 3 – Minority View (Consensus Against)

Option 4 – Consensus or Strong Support but Significant Opposition

Option 5 – No Consensus/Divergence

Option 6 – Strong Support but Significant Opposition



On reconciling Options 1 & 4:



If, from the above tentative consensus listing, the group agrees that either Option 1 or Option 4 has sufficient consensus (but not the other), there will not be a conflict. Please therefore weigh in with your thoughts on the current consensus levels for these two options. I have seen some informal notes from WG members that support both Option 1 and Option 4, clarifying that they prefer Option 1 before Option 4, but please make such statements/clarification again.



Similarly, if we end up with Strong Support but Significant Opposition for both, we can just transmit both to the Council without the need for further discussion (but possibly with text that can include implementation guidance for Option 1).



For Option 1 – this will require a change to the UDRP and URS, so if this is the final consensus position, staff will add draft text to the report with implementation guidance.



On Minority Statements:



1) As Susan suggested on the call, Paul Tattersfield may want to consider filing a Minority Statement in regard to the Swaine memo, as despite several emails on the topic over the last month or two and on the Working Group calls, there has not been much support to remove the memo from the report.



2) Similarly, those who support recommendations/options that end up as either No Consensus/Divergence or Minority View should consider preparing Minority Statements (as I believe Phil has already indicated he may do).



Thank you to all who are contributing to a productive discussion. I ask that we refrain from questioning others’ credibility or credentials, stop bringing up old threads and posts again, and focus on getting to the final consensus. We had a good, friendly and effective call this Tuesday – let us continue that way also online!



Best regards,

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<mailto:petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>

www.fenixlegal.eu [fenixlegal.eu]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fenixlegal.eu&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=eBu8w8LpXXMuNVdd3VRImuRzK5YAff1wf6rYg8mwTwg&s=5pyrx4-xVveWb4rzccsd-_0jipvCxPjze5i4CDK8Pgs&e=>



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 [fenixlegal.eu]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.fenixlegal.eu&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=eBu8w8LpXXMuNVdd3VRImuRzK5YAff1wf6rYg8mwTwg&s=5pyrx4-xVveWb4rzccsd-_0jipvCxPjze5i4CDK8Pgs&e=>

Thank you

_______________________________________________
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







-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/attachments/20180621/882ea8d3/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list