[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] PPSAI - Proposed language on attestation

[Victoria Sheckler]

I agree with Kiran.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 3, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> Not true in my experience. Consultants frequently have a narrow scope of work, often make representations and operate outside of it, and are rarely able to bind the companies for whom they work except for very narrow and pre-assigned ways. It's a great way of providing plausible deniability to their clients.
> 
> Attorneys know their scope of engagement, know the limits of their work, and when they may bind their clients. Attorneys are bound by both obligations to their clients and obligations/ethics as members of their bar associations; they are the right people to make the allegation of infringement (assuming IP is their specialty)and to create binding commitments on their clients re: the revealed data (and officers of the company for those too small to have counsel). They can oversee consultants and clerks..
> 
> The last thing I want to be doing when my data is revealed to the wrong party is litigating the scope of agency of the consultant...
> 
> Which reminds me, that we should be talking about jurisdiction where the trademark attorney (not the attorney) agrees to be bound when the Reveal is challenged in court.
> 
> Happy Easter! Happy Passover!
> Best,
> Kathy
> :
>> The agency relationship effectively binds the parties to each other's representations.
>> 
>> K
>> 
>> Kiran Malancharuvil
>> Internet Policy Counselor
>> MarkMonitor
>> 415-419-9138 (m)
>> 
>> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>> 
>> On Apr 3, 2015, at 6:58 AM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> "I have the authority to make the representations and claims in this request"
>> is useful, but how does a consultant bind Procter & Gamble to the limitations on the use of the revealed data?
>> 
>> Best,
>> Kathy
>> :
>> Dear all:
>> 
>> Following up on our productive discussion earlier this week, we’d like to offer a suggestion to modify the “attestation” provisions (II.A.6.c; II.B.7.d; and II.C.6.c) to require a statement by the requestor specifying his/her authority for making the request, or basis for agency if he or she is not the rights holder. For example: “Where the signatory is not the rights holder, he/she must attest that he/she is an authorized representative of the rights holder, capable and qualified to evaluate and address the matters involved in this request, and having the authority to make the representations and claims on behalf of the rights holder in the request.”
>> 
>> We could even spell out the statement for the signatory to make in conjunction with each request : “I attest that I am the rights holder / authorized representative of the rights holder, capable and qualified to evaluate and address the matters involved in this request, and have the authority to make the representations and claims in this request.”
>> 
>> These statements of authority and agency are to be made in good faith, under the penalty of perjury – just like representations forming the basis for the request and the requestor’s promise to use the data disclosed only for limited enumerated purposes – and the falsity of these statements would be redressable by the method(s) we agree on.
>> 
>> We believe this approach fairly balances the considerations expressed by various WG members and look forward to your thoughts.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Val
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Valeriya  Sherman<http://www.sgrlaw.com/attorneys/profiles/sherman-valeriya/> | Attorney at Law
>> 
>> 
>> 202-973-2611 phone
>> 202-263-4326 fax
>> www.sgrlaw.com<http://www.sgrlaw.com>
>> vsherman at sgrlaw.com<mailto:vsherman at sgrlaw.com>
>> 
>> 
>> 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
>> Suite 400
>> Washington, D.C. 20007
>> 
>> 
>> Ms. Sherman's practice is limited to matters before federal courts and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
>> She is not admitted in the District of Columbia.
>> 
>> 
>> <mime-attachment.jpg><http://www.sgrlaw.com> Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> Confidentiality Notice
>> This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
>> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg