[gnso-igo-wt] EPDP_SCRP_IGO - PCRT-Rec#3 Extract - New Idea
McGrady, Paul D.
PMcGrady at taftlaw.com
Fri Nov 19 13:29:18 UTC 2021
+1 Brian and Justine.
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.
From: gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Justine Chew via gnso-igo-wt
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 7:28 AM
To: gnso-igo-wt at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-wt] EPDP_SCRP_IGO - PCRT-Rec#3 Extract - New Idea
+1 BrianKind regards,JustineOn Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 21:00, BECKHAM Brian via gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-wt at icann.org>> wrote:Thanks Berry, all, Having again considered this proposal, from IGOs’ perspective,insofar as the proposal gets rid of the mutual jurisdiction clause altogeth
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 at 21:00, BECKHAM Brian via gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-wt at icann.org>> wrote:
Thanks Berry, all,
Having again considered this proposal, from IGOs’ perspective, insofar as the proposal gets rid of the mutual jurisdiction clause altogether, that addresses one concern. But, and as was stated on an earlier call, it only does so by delaying the jurisdictional issue.
Under the proposal, if the IGO loses the UDRP they have no other option but to go to court. This misses a core WG goal of respecting IGOs’ status under international law regarding immunity.
Also under the proposal, if the IGO wins the UDRP, the registrant can unilaterally force the IGO to face that same court dilemma (as Mr. Kirikos explains: “they can simply set the adverse decision aside by invoking the Notice of Objection, making the [UDRP] loss [by the registrant] not enforceable”). The proposed solution to this rather obvious potential gaming scenario is to require a challenge notice fee. While on a very rudimentary level that may appear to be a manageable risk/solution, fundamentally it seems to overlook the fact that the appeal would happen in court, not under arbitration. This misses the mark.
From: gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-wt-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Berry Cobb via gnso-igo-wt
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2021 5:51 PM
To: Berry Cobb via gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-wt at icann.org>>
Subject: [gnso-igo-wt] EPDP_SCRP_IGO - PCRT-Rec#3 Extract - New Idea
Per the Chair’s request today, please find attached and extract of the new idea as presented by Leap of Faith Financial Services regarding the “Notice of Objection”. Please review this material in advance our next call on 22 Nov 2021 at 15:00 UTC.
Policy Development - Portfolio Manager
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
berry.cobb at icann.org<mailto:berry.cobb 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.
gnso-igo-wt mailing list
gnso-igo-wt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-wt at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the gnso-igo-wt