[gnso-igo-wt] Following up: Professor Swaine's legal advice on Mutual Jurisdiction and IGO jurisdictional immunity

Jay Chapman jay at digimedia.com
Fri Dec 3 23:00:00 UTC 2021


>From the BC:


Staff’s below email - which included excerpts from Professor Swaine's memo
- helps explain the BC's rationale for including the caveat that Andy had
proposed as a sound solution to the Mutual Jurisdiction issue.



As Staff’s email pointed out from the Swaine memo: “*as a purely legal
matter, it seems unlikely that the Mutual Jurisdiction provision, as it may
be accepted by an IGO, establishes or occasions a violation of IGO
immunity”. *What this means, is that if Mutual Jurisdiction were left in
>>as is<< (i.e. without the proposed caveat), it would still likely not
violate an IGO’s privileges and sovereign immunity.



But as even greater assurance to IGOs, the caveat was proposed to make it
expressly clear, that not only was the IGO not voluntarily waiving
immunities, but that it reserves its right to claim immunities in court.
The BC would therefore characterize this approach as “the best of both
worlds”; It enables IGOs to use the UDRP without giving up any
immunities, *while
at the same time* not foreclosing the possibility of a registrant at least
trying to go to court and arguing no immunities (in the very unlikely event
that the registrant loses an IGO UDRP and wants to “appeal” it).


In addition...


The BC's goal was to create a compromise.  On the one hand, IGOs favor
eliminating the existing blanket rule requiring submission to mutual
jurisdiction.  On the other hand, we do not want to completely remove the
ability for registrants to "appeal" a UDRP decision (and to argue the
immunities issue).  Whether or not the current provision violates an IGO's
immunity is an open question, and likely depends on the particular court
and jurisdiction at issue.


Our proposed language seeks to find a middle ground and to clarify this
provision by incorporating an explicit caveat in Section 3(b)(xii) that
IGOs are *not* broadly waiving their privileges and sovereign immunity.
Nonetheless, they will agree, strictly for the purpose of this particular
proceeding only, to a narrower jurisdiction clause that theoretically
allows a losing registrant to still bring a court challenge in at least one
acceptable mutual jurisdiction.


Sincerely,
Jay Chapman

<http://digimedia.com>
Digimedia.com - 102 S. Broadway, #200 - Edmond, OK 73034
jay at digimedia.com - (940) 691-1800

This e-mail & any attachment(s) is(/are) confidential & only for the
intended recipient(s).  If you are not an intended recipient, please
immediately notify me, delete this e-mail & all attachment(s).



On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 11:54 AM Mary Wong via gnso-igo-wt <
gnso-igo-wt at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
>
> To assist with your review of (among others) the BC’s, IPC’s and ICA’s
> Public Comments relating to Mutual Jurisdiction, here is some additional
> context that staff hopes is helpful. We also attach a copy of Professor
> Edward Swaine’s full legal memo for your reference.
>
>
>
> The staff read of Professor Swaine’s advice is that maintaining the
> requirement for an IGO Complainant to submit to a Mutual Jurisdiction when
> filing a UDRP/URS complaint is likely to amount to an IGO’s thereby waiving
> any jurisdictional immunity it may have in a court. Professor Swaine’s view
> is stated on Page 3 of his memo, as to the question (emphasis added):
>
> *"whether—in light of an IGO’s assent to Mutual Jurisdiction—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 would likely establish such a waiver, as it would for a
> state entity otherwise entitled to foreign sovereign immunity. This waiver
> would be construed narrowly, but it would likely permit proceeding against
> an IGO in at least some domestic courts."*
>
>
>
> Professor Swaine also acknowledges the tension between preserving an IGO’s
> immunities (e.g. by modifying or removing the Mutual Jurisdiction clause)
> and how that may affect a registrant’s ability to have a court agree to
> hear the case on its merits (since accomplishing the former may result in
> the court finding that it cannot take the case, as opposed to agreeing to
> hear the case on the basis that an IGO has already waived any immunity it
> may have):
>
> *“If there were no Mutual Jurisdiction clause, an IGO might be entitled to
> immunity from judicial process; in the status quo, however, it likely would
> not.  Equitable considerations might influence any judicial analysis.  If
> the Mutual Jurisdiction obligation were altered to preserve IGO immunity,
> without any possibility of judicial recourse, it might be considered an
> insufficient remedy for domain registrants.”*
>
>
>
> The above statement was probably the challenge that the BC compromise was
> trying to address; in other words, *how to create a policy that ensures
> not just that the registrant can still go to court (which it always can),
> but that also prevents (as much as feasible) that court from refusing to
> hear the case on the basis that the IGO is immune from that court’s
> jurisdiction*?
>
>
>
> This is where the ICA comment appears to come in as well, in that it
> quotes that part of the Swaine memo where he examines a few options.
> Specifically, that quote comes from Professor Swaine’s analysis of the
> option to retain the Mutual Jurisdiction requirement (see Page 26) which,
> as a legal rule, he does not consider to be a “violation” of an IGO’s
> immunity. That section in full reads (emphasis added):
>
> *“One legally available option is to maintain the status quo.  Even if one
> assumes that an IGO, absent Mutual Jurisdiction, might be capable of
> asserting immunity, affording them a means of surrendering that immunity
> via the Mutual Jurisdiction provision is not itself an infringement.
> Accordingly, as a purely legal matter, it seems unlikely that the Mutual
> Jurisdiction provision, as it may be accepted by an IGO, establishes or
> occasions a violation of IGO immunity.”*
>
>
>
> Imposing a legal rule that does not undercut or infringe a party’s
> privileges or immunities as a general matter is thus *not* the same thing
> as voluntarily agreeing to waive that immunity – which an IGO will likely
> be considered to have done once it makes the decision to file a UDRP/URS
> complaint. The distinction is between whether having such a legal rule
> (Mutual Jurisdiction) violates another legal rule (jurisdictional
> immunity), versus whether the subject of that rule has the right and
> ability to decide whether to waive its immunities.
>
>
>
> Thanks and cheers
>
> Steve, Berry & Mary
>
>
>
> *From: *gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Berry
> Cobb via gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt at icann.org>
> *Reply-To: *Berry Cobb <Berry.Cobb at icann.org>
> *Date: *Monday, November 29, 2021 at 4:33 PM
> *To: *Terri Agnew via gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[gnso-igo-wt] Action Items: 29 Nov 2021 Call
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Please find below the action items from today’s EPDP call on 29 Nov 2021.
>
>
>
> 1)
>
> Jay/Paul to confirm the intent of the BC/IPC comment: Accordingly, one
> potential compromise alternative to exempting an IGO from the mandatory
> submission to a “Mutual Jurisdiction”, would be amending UDRP Rules Section
> 3(b)(xii) with an explicit caveat as follows: “State that Complainant,
> without prejudice to an IGO Complainant’s privileges and sovereign
> immunity, will submit, with respect to any challenges to a decision in the
> administrative proceeding canceling or transferring the domain name, to the
> jurisdiction of the courts in at least one specified Mutual Jurisdiction.”
>
> Due date: 10 Dec 2021
>
>
>
> 2)
>
> IGOs (Brian) to respond on-list to ICA response quoting from Prof Swaine:
> "As a purely legal matter, it seems unlikely that the Mutual Jurisdiction
> provision, as it may be accepted by an IGO, establishes or occasions a
> violation of IGO immunity… [and] it may seem more appropriate to require an
> IGO to abide by a judicial process, given that it has elected to initiate
> UDRP proceedings, than it would be require a domain-name registrant to
> accept the IGO’s preferred alternative”
>
> Due date: 10 Dec 2021
>
>
>
> 3)
>
> Brian to provide update to Rec #1 small team he received from UN
> colleagues regarding the use of "Permanent Observer Status" in context of
> Rec #1 intent.
>
> Due date: 10 Dec 2021
>
>
>
> 4)
>
> Staff to update Rec #3 PCRT
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/178586684/EPDP_SCRP_IGO_pcrt-Initial-Report-Recommendations_Rec3_20211129.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1638217389000&api=v2>
> [COMPLETE]
>
>
>
> Next meeting: 13 Dec 2021 @ 15:00 UTC
>
> Preliminary agenda: Review Rec #1, Conclude on Rec #3 Action Items & PCRT,
> begin on Rec #4 PCRT
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> B
>
>
>
> Berry Cobb
>
> Policy Development - Portfolio Manager
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> berry.cobb at icann.org
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-igo-wt mailing list
> gnso-igo-wt at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-wt
>
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-wt/attachments/20211203/9d5e0741/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the gnso-igo-wt mailing list