[gnso-igo-wt] Proposed agenda for IGO Work Track call on 1 March and some follow up information
mary.wong at icann.org
Fri Feb 26 17:17:23 UTC 2021
Here is the proposed agenda for our upcoming call this Monday, 1 March:
1. Welcome & request for updates to Statements of Interest (Chris)
2. Meeting logistics: Zoom format and participation options for members, alternates and observers (Terri/GNSO Secretariat)
3. Tour de Table: outline/presentation of proposals from Work Track members (All)
4. Open discussion (All)
5. Any other Business (All)
6. Closing & next steps (Chris & Policy staff)
In addition, and in response to Yrjo’s request from our first call earlier this week, you can find the six options that were considered by the GNSO Curative Rights PDP Working Group on Pages 18-21 of the Working Group’s Final Report: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/igo-ingo-crp-access-final-17jul18-en_0.pdf. While some of the options have since been superseded by other developments (e.g. creation of this Work Track) and some also indicate Divergence (as defined by the GNSO’s procedural rules) in the group, which means our Work Track should be careful not to “re-litigate” the issues, perhaps there are some useful starting points for further discussion (e.g. about arbitral options, should you wish to take that path.)
The Final Report also contains – in Annexes F and D respectively – the full report from the external legal expert (whose suggested options are noted in the main text at Pages 25-26) and the IGO Small Group Proposal, which, as mentioned previously, are documents that the GNSO Council expressly tasked the Work Track to consider.
Steve & Mary
From: BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int>
Date: Friday, February 26, 2021 at 9:30 AM
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>, "gnso-igo-wt at icann.org" <gnso-igo-wt at icann.org>
Subject: [Ext] RE: [gnso-igo-wt] Just a simple way of looking at arbitration
Hi Mary, all,
Before we head into the weekend, I just wanted to check if there was a particular agenda to prepare for Monday’s upcoming call (even if only to pick up on some of the below brainstorming).
From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 12:56 AM
To: Vanda Scartezini <vanda at scartezini.org>; BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int>; gnso-igo-wt at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-wt] Just a simple way of looking at arbitration
Hello everyone, thank you for kicking off our mailing list discussions! If we may, here is some additional background to the Work Track that may be useful as you begin your deliberations.
As Brian mentions, previous discussions had included consideration of the possibility of an arbitral-type model. Most recently in the ICANN context, this includes the Policy Development Process Working Group that developed the five Curative Rights recommendations, of which Recommendation #5 was the one referred to this Work Track by the GNSO Council. In its Initial Report, the Working Group had requested public comments on two options for handling the question of IGO jurisdictional immunity: (1) what ultimately became Recommendation #5; or (2) allow for appeals from a panel decision under the existing ICANN dispute resolution processes to be decided through arbitration. ICANN staff had also noted a number of materials for the Working Group to inform its discussions over an arbitral appeal mechanism, including: (1) the UNCITRAL Rules mentioned by Kris in his previous note; (2) the deliberations of the WIPO General Assembly in 2002 (subsequent to the WIPO-2 Domain Name Process mentioned on our call earlier today); and (3) a 2003 WIPO Secretariat paper discussing the possible contours of a de novo appeal mechanism (although this study was undertaken in the context of country names rather than IGO identifiers). Should the Work Track decide to proceed to discuss some form of arbitral appeal option, we will be happy to provide summaries of the previous work that is relevant to this topic – both within ICANN and externally - and links to full copies of the materials.
In this regard, we note that the GNSO Council had expressly included the external expert memo (by Professor Edward Swaine of the George Washington University law school) and the IGO Small Group Proposal (mentioned by Brian) in the chartering document as relevant documentation for this Work Track to review.
Prior discussions in various forums inside and outside ICANN, echoed by various participants on our call today, confirm that the basic challenges IGOs face in using the existing ICANN dispute resolution processes are the requirements to have trademark rights for standing to file a complaint and to submit to the jurisdiction in a Mutual Jurisdiction (as defined in the applicable Rules). These prior discussions also show that there are longstanding differences of opinion about whether the more appropriate policy solution is to amend the existing processes or develop a separate one for disputes involving IGOs. Where an arbitral mechanism is concerned, a few factors this Work Track may wish to consider could include when and how an agreement to go to arbitration is obtained, whether an appeal via arbitration is mandatory or voluntary, and (if the solution involves the current ICANN processes) any effects on the existing Mutual Jurisdiction requirement.
We hope the above information is helpful as the Work Track begins to consider possible options and creative solutions.
Steve and Mary
From: gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-wt-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Vanda Scartezini via gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-wt at icann.org>>
Reply-To: Vanda Scartezini <vanda at scartezini.org<mailto:vanda at scartezini.org>>
Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 at 3:10 PM
To: BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int>>, "gnso-igo-wt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-wt at icann.org>" <gnso-igo-wt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-wt at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-wt] Just a simple way of looking at arbitration
Totally agree Brian. What is relevant is the opportunity to allow registrant to fight for their name which could be their own name, or a trade mark in their country. So after the URDP finalize its decision, to make room for another instance, such instance , IMO, should be an independent arbitration on the registrant country to allow a defense on their own language and reduced cost.
Just to detail the idea behind
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
Sorry for any typos.
From: gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-wt-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of BECKHAM Brian via gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-wt at icann.org>>
Reply-To: BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int>>
Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 at 16:53
To: "gnso-igo-wt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-wt at icann.org>" <gnso-igo-wt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-wt at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-wt] Just a simple way of looking at arbitration
Thanks Kris for this useful background,
Part of our charge is to seek to remain “generally consistent” with prior work, which includes looking at the UDRP – which borrows heavily from arbitration principles and for which there is 20 years of experience – as a model. This also helps us to avoid re-inventing the wheel, so to speak.
Interestingly, prior discussions did explore the concept of an arbitral-type appeal. That concept served the dual goals of giving registrants an avenue to appeal a decision they disagreed with, and at the same time avoided IGOs jeopardizing internationally recognized privileges and immunities. If you agree, there may be good utility in exploring this again.
It is also worth bearing in mind here that in terms of the likelihood of any such appeals avenue being invoked (and indeed cases at first instance), work produced by the “Small Group” referenced in our briefing materials suggested the scope of a curative IGO-based RPM should address claims of abusive domain name registrations “where the registrant is pretending to be the IGO or that are otherwise likely to result in fraud or deception.”
Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 | E brian.beckham at wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int> | www.wipo.int [wipo.int]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.wipo.int/__;!!PtGJab4!vuJqIvy0JhxS6uTM6ccCnm5MZNm1BoqV0rPY4WGT2bq0sMpe9SmwT1BDjkOOdA59P3w9XOo$>
From: gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-wt-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Kris Seeburn via gnso-igo-wt
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 8:01 PM
To: gnso-igo-wt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-wt at icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-igo-wt] Just a simple way of looking at arbitration
To my fellow friends and colleagues I wanted to bring to all of you the simple arbitration rules The Hague practices...
International arbitration has long been the most successful method for settling all kinds of international commercial disputes, and still is – notwithstanding the surrounding criticism – the leading method for settling disputes between foreign investors and the host state. One of the characteristics of international arbitration is that it to a large extent relies on an international or transnational legal framework.
The effects of arbitration agreements and of arbitral awards, as well as the role of the courts regarding arbitration agreements and awards, are regulated in international conventions such as the New York or the ICSID Conventions. Furthermore, although there is room for specificities of national law, commercial arbitration acts are largely harmonised especially through the impact of the UNCITRAL Model Law.
Similarly, even if arbitral institutions try to distinguish one from each other by providing for some specific tools, the essential content of arbitration rules does not vary. It can be said, consequently, that the transnational framework of arbitration is intended to create to the extent possible an autonomous system of dispute resolution, which can be applied in a uniform way irrespective of the country in which the proceedings take place or the award is sought enforced. The procedural autonomy of arbitration may also have an impact on how arbitral tribunals relate to the substance of the dispute.
As arbitral awards are final and binding, and domestic courts and ICSID annulment committees do not have the power to review them in the merits, arbitral tribunals enjoy a considerable flexibility in selecting and applying the rules of law applicable to the dispute, even though they are constrained to respect the will of the parties. Legal literature has strongly emphasized that this flexibility creates an expectation of delocalization: both from the procedural and from the substantive point of view, arbitration is described as a method for settling disputes that strives for uniformity on a transnational level and should not be subject to national laws. The autonomy and flexibility of arbitration, however, are not absolute.
The international instruments that regulate arbitration either make, in some contexts, reference to national law or call for the application of (general or concrete) international law. Also, they do not cover all aspects of arbitration, thus leaving room for national regulation. Additionally, the restricted role that courts and ICSID ad hoc committees have in arbitration does not completely exclude that national law may have an impact. While court and committee control is not a review in the merits, application of the parameters for validity or enforceability of an award, even where these parameters are harmonised, may depend on national regulation.
Importantly, the definition of what disputes are arbitrable is left to national law. While the scope of arbitrability has been significantly expanded starting from the last two decades of the last century, there are signs now that it may be restricting. The scope of arbitrability may be looked upon as a measure of the trust that the legal system has in arbitration. From another perspective, it may represent the way in which States approach the settlement of international commercial disputes: intending to keep an exclusive power by means of the exclusion of private deciders, or adopting the role of controllers of the regularity of arbitration. As far as investment arbitration is specifically concerned, it is well known that States’ attitudes are diverse and may change from time to time. In both cases, States’ policy choices may have an impact on applicable law issues.
All the foregoing considerations, succinctly exposed, are the frame for the present topic. On such a basis, it is possible to develop two lists of issues to be individually addressed. The first list deals with the fundamental aspects of the topic. Among the issues included therein, some refer to all types of arbitration, while others are rather specific to either commercial or investment arbitration. The second list responds to the fact that the applicable law is not necessarily unitary. Indeed, according to the principle of severability, a different law may apply to the procedural aspects and to the substantive aspects of the dispute, and within these two categories there are further possibilities for severing the applicable law. Thus, one can wonder to which issues is it appropriate to apply international sources of law, to which issues is it appropriate to apply soft sources of law, to which is it appropriate to apply national sources of law, and to which issues is it appropriate to apply (or to create) transnational standards.
Or a combination of these sources? On which basis may this selection be made, and what are its effects on the autonomy of arbitration, on the expectations of the parties and on the credibility and legitimacy of arbitration as an out-of-court judicial system that enjoys enforceability?
I suggest you have a first read on simple way forward for arbitration. We could amend rework and put in place our satisfied way forward. We take point 5 and turn it into a satisfactory curative arbitration track. I’ll await some of your thoughts.
On 22 Feb 2021, at 22:26, Terri Agnew via gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-wt at icann.org>> wrote:
All recordings for the IGO Work Track Team Meeting call held on Monday, 22 February 2021 at 16:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/7QlACQ> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master Calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar__;!!PtGJab4!vuJqIvy0JhxS6uTM6ccCnm5MZNm1BoqV0rPY4WGT2bq0sMpe9SmwT1BDjkOOdA59GbyLhjE$>.
· Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list)
· Audio recording
· Zoom chat archive
· Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript)
As a reminder only members can join the call, observers can listen to the recordings and read the transcript afterwards. Please email gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> if you would like to change your status from observer to member.
For additional information, you may consult the mailing list archives <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-wt/> and the main wiki page<https://community.icann.org/display/GNSOIWT>.
gnso-igo-wt mailing list
gnso-igo-wt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-wt at icann.org>
World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the gnso-igo-wt