[gnso-igo-wt] Kick off email for discuss

Thu Jul 1 15:29:15 UTC 2021

Dear Brian
Thanks
The partied could start from some point
Do you suggest that they start from choice of law?
If disagreed what would be subsequent step(S)
Proceeding with arbitration?
One or Three arbiter?
With 3 arbiters ( one from each party and the third one ti  totally independent ?
Pls advise 
Regards
Kavouss 

Envoyé de mon iPhone

> Le 1 juil. 2021 à 15:39, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com> a écrit :
> 
> 
> Thanks Brian.  That is a good question.  I suppose we have to parse out the difference between not requiring an IGO to consent to a court jurisdiction vs. what jurisdictions the losing respondent could file in that would work the same automatic stay of the UDRP proceedings that respondents now enjoy.  Otherwise, what possible reason would an IGO have to agree to arbitration? 
>  
> From: BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int> 
> Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 8:27 AM
> To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>; Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>; gnso-igo-wt at icann.org
> Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-wt] Kick off email for discuss
>  
> [EXTERNAL MESSAGE]
> Thanks – helpful indeed.
>  
> So, if you will indulge one more question, if (whether due to failure to agree on choice of law or otherwise) there is no agreement to arbitrate, would the idea be that the UDRP decision kicks in?
>  
> Brian
>  
> From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com> 
> Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 3:24 PM
> To: BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int>; Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>; gnso-igo-wt at icann.org
> Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-wt] Kick off email for discuss
>  
> Thanks Brian.  The choice whether or not to arbitrate would be based on the process we decide, rather than being decided within the process.  Once a party commits to arbitration, they will be bound to do so.  The question is which of these (so far) 3 options is more like to induce a party to agree to arbitration in the first place.  For me, #1 would be the most attractive since going in blind on the Choice of Law issue would not be my favorite thing.  Hope that helps.
>  
> Best,
> Paul
>  
>  
>  
> From: BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int> 
> Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 8:16 AM
> To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>; Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>; gnso-igo-wt at icann.org
> Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-wt] Kick off email for discuss
>  
> [EXTERNAL MESSAGE]
> Thanks Paul for setting this out.
>  
> As we had discussed the idea of a fallback provision on our last call, I had understood option 3 as being applied in something of a bifurcated fashion, e.g., step 1 agree to arbitrate, step 2 try to agree on choice of law, but if the parties are unable to agree the arbitrator(s) decide?
>  
> Can you help me understand a bit better how that would work with the idea that a party could decide not to engage in arbitration if they did not get their choice of law?
>  
> Brian
>  
> From: gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. via gnso-igo-wt
> Sent: Thursday, July 1, 2021 2:41 PM
> To: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com>
> Cc: gnso-igo-wt at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-wt] Kick off email for discuss
>  
> Thanks Kavouss.
>  
> All, it appears we now have three options regarding Choice of Law:
>  
> 1.  The parties deciding at the time of agreeing to arbitration;
> 2.  The arbitrator making the decision in all cases; or
> 3.  The arbitrator making the decision in cases where the parties agree to arbitration but cannot agree on a Choice of Law.
>  
> I can live with any of these three, since ultimately a party can decide not to engage in arbitration of they do not have control over the Choice of Law.  If we wish to promote the use of binding arbitration, it seems to me that 1 is the most likely to do so, followed by 3 and then lastly 2.
>  
> Best,
> Paul
>  
>  
> From: Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com> 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 2:26 AM
> To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>
> Cc: gnso-igo-wt at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-wt] Kick off email for discuss
>  
> [EXTERNAL MESSAGE]
> Dear Paul
> Tks 
> But these are not two independent options but two stepwise options
> In other words , if the parties do not agree on the choice of law  then the arbiter acts as in option 2 
> Regards
> Kavouss 
>  
>  
>  
> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>  
> 
> Le 28 juin 2021 à 18:19, McGrady, Paul D. via gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt at icann.org> a écrit :
> 
> 
> Regarding Choice of Law, I can live with either:
>  
> 1.  The parties deciding at the time of agreeing to arbitration; or
> 2.  The arbitrator making the decision (which will affect whether or not the parties ultimately agree to the arbitration).
>  
> Discuss! 
>  
> Best,
> Paul
>  
>  
>  
> Taft /
>  
> Paul D. McGrady / Partner
> Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
> 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
> Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713
> Tel: 312.527.4000 • Fax: 312.754.2354
> Direct: 312.836.4094 • Cell: 312.882.5020
> www.taftlaw.com / PMcGrady at taftlaw.com
> 
>  
>  
> This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 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...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-wt/attachments/20210701/70fb1a10/attachment-0001.html>