[gnso-igo-wt] PLEASE REVIEW: Updated draft text for Recommendation 3

[Chris Disspain]

Thanks Matt.

Whilst I appreciate your input, I see significant difference between versions 1 and 2 and so intend that we will discuss both on our call.

It would be helpful if you are able to explain the reasons for you discomfort especially given your suggestion that it may be deemed to be a submission to jurisdiction which seems to be, at least prima facie, to fly in the face of a clear acknowledgement from the other party that it does not.

Cheers,

CD

Chris Disspain
chris at disspain.uk

+44 7880 642456

On 7 Feb 2022, 12:03 +0000, Matthew.COLEMAN--- via gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt at icann.org>, wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Many thanks to Steve, Berry and Mary for circulating this.
>
> We (the IGO Group) have discussed Option 1 and are uncomfortable with the requirement for an IGO complainant to specify a court for the registrant in case it wishes to initiate court proceedings. This may well be deemed to constitute a submission to jurisdiction, and it is not clear whether the reservation of immunities would be effective.
>
> We would therefore be grateful if the group could work off Option 2 on this afternoon’s call. The language we have proposed seeks to circumvent the issue above, as it does not require an IGO complainant to nominate a court. The outcome for the registrant is also broadly the same – its right to go to court if it wishes is reaffirmed.
>
> We look forward to speaking with you later this afternoon.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Matt
>
> From: gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Mary Wong via gnso-igo-wt
> Sent: 03 February, 2022 3:44 PM
> To: gnso-igo-wt at icann.org
> Subject: [gnso-igo-wt] PLEASE REVIEW: Updated draft text for Recommendation 3
>
> Dear EPDP team,
>
> One action item from Monday’s call was for staff to work with the leadership team to develop updated draft text for Recommendation 3 (regarding jurisdiction and the respective rights of an IGO Complainant and registrant). In addition, IGO representatives were to send suggested language for consideration. As a result, we attach a document that contains two alternative, updated formulations of Recommendation 3 for your review and further discussion. Please come to next Monday’s (7 February) call prepared to discuss the new text in detail, so that the group can conclude its deliberations on this topic in a feasibly expedient manner.
>
> We will send out the agenda for Monday’s call, including updated draft text for Recommendations 4 & 5, separately.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Cheers
> Steve, Berry & Mary
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220207/64454dd7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 5B367B97857949D48EF8CDDF63787E84.tiff
Type: image/tiff
Size: 12586 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-wt/attachments/20220207/64454dd7/5B367B97857949D48EF8CDDF63787E84-0001.tiff>