<div dir="ltr">I understand the need for diplomacy and the politics involved however I am concerned that the proposals before the working do not articulate the correct equtable and legal position.<br><br>We need to make it very clear, no matter how unpalatable the position, that the IGOs would not be entitled to immunity when initiating proceedings in any other forum.<br><br>Absent UDRP there are two possible ways the immunity question could come before a court:<br><br>(a) A TM owner seeks to acquire a domain which an IGO has registered<br>(b) An IGO seeks to acquire a domain which a domain registrant has registered<br> <br>In (a) the IGO would be entitled to raise an immunity defence<br>In (b) the IGO would be required to waive immunity for the court to consider the matter.<br><br>I appreciate this is a very precise legal point and even Prof. Swaine confused this in his reasoning* but we as a working group have no excuse.<br><br>Best regards,<br><br><br>Paul.<br><br><br>*In 3. Discussion (Page 8) Swaine says:<br><br>"The core question is whether an IGO is “entitled to immunity,” but the baseline assumptions may be disaggregated. An IGO’s immunity would be most clearly at issue if the IGO had not itself initiated any related judicial proceeding—since that would risk waiving any immunity to which it would be entitled, including to counterclaims18—and the UDPRP’s Mutual Jurisdiction provision were absent. This might be the case, for example, where a domain-name registrant has sought a declaratory judgment in relation to some actual or potential infringement by an IGO.19 Although that is not the scenario of principal concern here, imagining that scenario usefully isolates the question as to whether an IGO has a legitimate expectation that it would be entitled to immunity absent the UDRP and its concessions. If such immunity is minimal or uncertain, then any compromises required by the UDRP loom less large; if the IGO would otherwise be entitled to immunity, however, its potential sacrifice seems more substantial."<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Phil Corwin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com" target="_blank">psc@vlaw-dc.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">George:<br>
<br>
You are correct, and I hereby offer a Mea Culpa for that incorrect sentence, which I authored. It was a mistake on my part rather than any attempt to mislead the WG.<br>
<br>
My personal view remains that Option A would be DOA upon arrival at the GNSO Council, and that Option B would suffer the same fate because it adopts Option A for all grandfathered domains. The bigger problem is that such rejection might bring down the entire Final Report.<br>
<br>
Best, Philip<br>
<br>
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal<br>
Virtualaw LLC<br>
1155 F Street, NW<br>
Suite 1050<br>
Washington, DC 20004<br>
<a href="tel:202-559-8597" value="+12025598597">202-559-8597</a>/Direct<br>
<a href="tel:202-559-8750" value="+12025598750">202-559-8750</a>/Fax<br>
<a href="tel:202-255-6172" value="+12022556172">202-255-6172</a>/Cell<br>
<br>
Twitter: @VlawDC<br>
<br>
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org">gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@<wbr>icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org">gnso-igo-ingo-crp-<wbr>bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of George Kirikos<br>
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 6:39 AM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Co-Chairs' proposal for Working Group consideration - UPDATED<br>
<br>
In my email last week:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-September/000849.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/<wbr>gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-<wbr>September/000849.html</a><br>
<br>
I pointed out various flaws in the "Preliminary Notes" section:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-September/000849.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/<wbr>gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-<wbr>September/000849.html</a><br>
<br>
e.g. in relation to Option B, it was asserted:<br>
<br>
"They also observe that it would leave registrants of grandfathered domains without any arbitral appeal option in the event that an IGO successfully invoked judicial process immunity."<br>
<br>
which is obviously incorrect, because in that scenario "Option A"<br>
would apply, and there would not be any need for the registrants to seek arbitration, given the UDRP decision would be vitiated.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
George Kirikos<br>
<a href="tel:416-588-0269" value="+14165880269">416-588-0269</a><br>
<a href="http://www.leap.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.leap.com/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Steve Chan <<a href="mailto:steve.chan@icann.org">steve.chan@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> Dear WG Members,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Taking into account the WG members’ conversations on the 28 September<br>
> WG meeting, staff has updated the “Options Proposal for WG Discussion”<br>
> document for continued discussion on the upcoming 5 October meeting.<br>
> It is anticipated that the conversation will return to Option B and<br>
> then continue to then discuss Option C.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Please do let us know if anything might require adjustment prior to<br>
> the WG’s next meeting.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Best,<br>
><br>
> Steve<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Steven Chan<br>
><br>
> Policy Director, GNSO Support<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ICANN<br>
><br>
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300<br>
><br>
> Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536<br>
><br>
> <a href="mailto:steve.chan@icann.org">steve.chan@icann.org</a><br>
><br>
> mobile: <a href="tel:%2B1.310.339.4410" value="+13103394410">+1.310.339.4410</a><br>
><br>
> office tel: <a href="tel:%2B1.310.301.5800" value="+13103015800">+1.310.301.5800</a><br>
><br>
> office fax: <a href="tel:%2B1.310.823.8649" value="+13108238649">+1.310.823.8649</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and<br>
> visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO</a><br>
><br>
> Follow the GNSO on Facebook: <a href="https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/<wbr>icanngnso/</a><br>
><br>
> <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://gnso.icann.org/en/</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</a><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</a><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org">Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp</a></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>