Re: Letter of Opposition on Community Priority Evaluation for.llp ( )
|
|
- Beverly Collins
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 InterNetX GmbH Maximilianstr Regensburg Germany Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA USA InterNetX GmbH Maximilianstr Regensburg Germany Telefon Telefax info@internetx.de February 20th, 2014 Re: Letter of Opposition on Community Priority Evaluation for.llp ( ) Dear ICANN, InterNetX GmbH, as the parent company of myllp GmbH, an applicant for.llp, would like to take the opportunity to submit a letter of opposition for the Community Priority Evaluation of Dot Registry LLC s.llp application. Thank you for reviewing our attached statement and forwarding this document to the CPE Panel. Handelsregister B Regensburg 7142 Geschäftsführer/CEO RA Thomas Mörz USt-IdNr. DE Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG Konto-Nr BLZ IBAN-Nr.: DE SWIFT-Code: HYVEDEMM447 Sincerely, Thomas Mörz, CEO of InterNetX GmbH CEO of myllp GmbH 1
2 INTRODUCTION 3 Criterion # 1: Community Establishment 4 Definition 4 Analysis 4 Conclusion 5 Criterion # 2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community 6 2-A Nexus 6 Definition 6 Analysis 6 Conclusion 9 2-B Uniqueness 10 Definition 10 Analysis 10 Conclusion 10 Criterion # 3: Registration Policies 11 Definition 11 Analysis 11 Conclusion 12 Criterion # 4: Community Endorsement 12 Definition 12 Analysis 13 Conclusion 14 Overall Conclusion 14 2
3 INTRODUCTION We understand that ICANN is fully aware of the critical significance in the case of an inadequately delegated gtld to a non-legitimate community applicant. According to the Applicant Guidebook (AGB), it should be noted that a qualified community application eliminates all directly contending standard applications, regardless of how well qualified the latter may be. This is a fundamental reason for very stringent requirements for qualification of a community-based application... (AGB 4.2.3, p. 4-9) 1 Therefore, we appreciate the establishment of the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) Panel and support a strict examination of community applications, whereby the evaluation has to be handled very precisely in order to reach ICANN s goals for the New gtld Program, since all the TLDs are meant to be operated in a non-discriminatory way. 2 Dot Registry s application deliberately excludes numerous companies from many countries such as Canada, China, Germany, Greece, India, Japan, Kazakhstan, Poland, Romania, Singapore and the United Kingdom, as the applicant Dot Registry admitted in its application (Dot Registry, Application ID: , 20(d)). 3 Entities from these countries are excluded in a discriminatory way as they indeed have the same legal form as US based companies but are not allowed to register domains within the TLD.LLP. Therefore, and for the reasons mentioned below, the Dot Registry application has to fail the CPE and should be treated as regular application according to the AGB. 1 hts://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb (retrieved Februar 03, 2014) 2 (retrieved January 23, 2014) 3 (retrieved January 23, 2014) 3
4 Criterion # 1: Community Establishment In accordance with the AGB an application can score a total of 4 points in this Criteria: 2 points relating to Delineation and 2 for the sub-criterion Extension. Definition Following the Community Priority Evaluation Guidelines (CPEG), a clearly delineated, organized and pre-existing community (Criterion 1-A, CPEG, p. 3) 4 must exist (up to 2 points) being a community of considerable size and longevity (Criterion 1-B, CPEG, p. 5) 5 to score up to 4 points. Following the criteria definitions, an applicant needs a clear and straight-forward membership definition (Criterion 1-A, CPEG, p. 4) 6 to score high while an unclear, dispersed or unbound definition scores low (Id.). Analysis Dot Registry cannot deliver the necessary facts needed to score more than one point in this criterion. Dot Registry purports to create a community of Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) companies limited to the borders of the US and its territories. Although the applicant mentions the existence of LLPs in other countries, it excludes these companies from his community by referring to different formation regulations in countries other than the United States (Dot Registry, Application ID: , 20(d)). 7 The applicant obviously has also ignored the fact that even within the United States there are no homogeneous regulations regarding the formation of LLPs. Indeed there are completely different regulations in different states, e.g. in Texas, regarding the professional activities of partners who pretend to form an LLP (Texas Business Organizations Code, Title 4, Sec ) 8 as well as in Illinois (805 ILCS 206/1001). 9 In the state of New York partners who happen to be professionals authorized by law can only form an LLP (N.Y. PTR. LAW (a)(i)). 10 California limits LLPs to the professional fields of architecture, public 4 (retrieved January 23, 2014) 5 Id. 6 Id. 7 (retrieved February 03, 2014) 8 (retrieved January 23, 2014) 9 (retrieved January 23, 2014) 10 (retrieved January 23, 2014) 4
5 accountancy, engineering, land surveying and law (California Corporations Code Sec , 8A). 11 Without citing all different regulations to form LLPs within the United States it becomes clear that there are indeed tremendous differences between the different states and not only between the US and the rest of the world as stated by Dot Registry. 12 Besides this, there is more evidence that the community of LLPs is not limited to one specific country. The conceptual idea of LLPs was spread from the US to the United Kingdom (UK) in the 1990s. In particular, large international auditing companies like Deloitte from the US, PricewaterhouseCoopers from the UK, Ernst &Young from the UK and KPMG from the Netherlands (today known as The Big Four or as The Big Six back in the 1990s) started lobbying the concept of LLPs outside of the US due to their international business experience and necessities. 13 After the establishment of LLPs in the UK other countries followed the example. Today there are at least 75,000 LLPs located in Asian and European countries. Records show that more than 54,000 LLPs are registered in the UK 14, at least 9,300 LLPs are located in India 15, more than 8,200 LLPs can be found in Singapore 16 and at least 4,000 LLPs are active in Japan 17. Conclusion With regard to the aforementioned information it seems that the applicant Dot Registry did not give consideration to the global use of the LLP string when defining its own community. It is obvious that a community of LLPs, if existing at all, cannot be restricted to only one country but needs to include all companies of the same type, regardless of the jurisdiction where the company is registered. Thus, Dot Registry has failed to score in the field extension. In light of all the significant differences of LLPs in the US, as listed in our analysis, LLPs most probably do not consider themselves as part of a community, at least not a community limited to the jurisdiction of the United States. Most probably they don t even recognize themselves as a 11 (retrieved January 23, 2014) 12 number 20 d (retrieved January 23, 2014) 13 Finch, Vanessa; Freedman, Judith (2002): The limited liability partnership: pick and mix or mix-up? In: Journal of Business Law, Sep, (retrieved January 23, 2014) 15 (retrieved January 23, 2014) 16 (retrieved January 23, 2014) 17 p. 41 (retrieved January 23, 2014) 5
6 community at all. Dot Registry fails to show evidence of this awareness a necessity to score. 18 Therefore, the application should score very low. Criterion # 2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community In accordance with the AGB an application can score a total of 4 points in this Criteria; 3 for the sub-criterion Nexus and 1 point for Uniqueness. 2-A Nexus Definition For a score of 3, the essential aspect is that the applied for string is commonly known by others as the identification/name of community. (Criterion 2-A, CPEG p. 8) 19 The term others refers to individuals outside of the community itself" (Criterion 2-A, CPEG p. 7) 20 and identify means that the applied for string closely describes the community or the community members, without over-reaching substantially beyond the community (Id.). At which over-reaching substantially means that the string indicates a wider geographical or thematic remit than the community has (Id.). CPEG states that... for a score of 2, the applied-for string should closely describe the community or the community members, without over-reaching substantially beyond the community. (Criterion 2-A, CPEG p. 8) 21 Again over-reaching substantially means that the string indicates a wider geographical or thematic remit than the community has (Criterion 2-A, CPEG p. 7). 22 Analysis Issue 1: Does the string capture a wider geographical/thematic remit than the community has? (Criterion 2-A, CPEG p.8) 23 Dot Registry LLC s definition of the LLP Community: 18 page 5 (retrieved January 23, 2014) 19 (retrieved February 03, 2014) 20 Id. 21 Id. 22 Id. 23 Id. 6
7 Members of the community are defined as businesses registered as Limited Liability Partnerships with the United States or its territories. (Dot Registry, Application ID: , 20(a)) 24 Ø The string.llp captures a wider geographical range because Limited Liability Partnerships (abbreviated with LLP) exist also outside of the United States, for example in: o The United Kingdom, as stated by the Companies register managed by the Companies House: (retrieved December 11, 2013) erstatisticsnovember2013.pdf (retrieved December 11, 2013) o India, as stated by the Ministry of Corporate Affaires: (retrieved December 11, 2013) (retrieved December 11, 2013) o Singapore, as stated by the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority Singapore: (retrieved December 11, 2013) o Japan, as stated by the OECD in a report about Japan: p. 41 (retrieved December 11, 2013) Issue 2: An Internet search should be utilized to help understand whether the string identifies the community and is known by others. (Criterion 2-A, CPEG p. 8) 25 Search engine Google, language settings English, search word LLP (retrieved December 11, 2013): o 1 st hit: Wikipedia o 2 nd & 3 rd hit: Lifelong Learning Program of the European Commission o 4 th hit: Music Label 24 (retrieved February 03, 2014) 25 (retrieved February 03, 2014) 7
8 o 5 th hit: KPMG LLP (Company Homepage) o 6 th hit: Local Language Program by Microsoft o 7 th hit: LLP Group (non-llp Company located in Prague) o 8 th hit: PwC (Company Homepage) o 9 th hit: Ernst &Young (Company Homepage) Search engine Google, language settings German, search word LLP (retrieved December 11, 2013): o 1 st hit: Wikipedia (LLP in British and American Law) o 2 nd hit: Lifelong Learning Program of the European Commission o 3 rd hit: English LLP, located in Berlin, Germany o 4 th hit: English LLP located in the US o 5 th hit: Music Label o 6 th hit: American LLP, located in Berlin, Germany o 7 th hit: Lifelong Learning Program of the European Commission o 8 th hit: English LLP, located in Berlin, Germany o 9 th hit: University Dortmund (Homepage) o 10 th hit: English LLP, located in Berlin Search engine Google, language settings English, search word Limited Liability Partnership (retrieved November 29, 2013): o 1 st & 2 nd hit: Wikipedia o 3 rd hit: Companies House UK o 4 th hit: Companies House UK o 5 th hit: Newspaper article about innovations regarding LLPs in India o 6 th hit: Dictionary Linguee o 7 th hit: Legal Dictionary o 8 th hit: unofficial informative pages regarding LLPs in the US o 9 th hit: LLPs in Malaysia o 10 th hit: LLP in UK (official informative page regarding LLPs in UK by the government) o 11 th hit: German magazine for lawyers about UK Limited Liability Partnership These Internet searches demonstrate that the string LLP does not identify a discrete community, contrary to what Dot Registry LLC has claimed. The first hits contain information 8
9 about LLPs in countries outside the US. Third parties do not associate the string with the selfdefined Dot Registry community. Further consideration: According to the experts of the International Chamber of Commerce, in charge of judging community objections 26 in the self-same application process, the evaluations of objections and community status share common concepts (such as community establishment and nexus between the string and the community), even though the standards are stricter with community status evaluation through EIU (ICC Case No. EXP/507/ICANN/124, p. 11). 27 Therefore, there is at least to be drawn an analogy to a similar case (.insurance), where the USbased P&C Insurance claimed to be the string related community. The ICC panel has concluded in its evaluation process, that the narrowness with which this community has been defined renders it very difficult to accept, that a global public (even restricted to English speaking countries) strongly associates the term insurance with the geographically-bound community of US P&C Insurances (Id., p. 25). 28 Conclusion Dot Registry s community application for.llp fails the criteria of nexus. Others do not naturally associate the string.llp with the community as defined by Dot Registry. The string.llp as a corporate identifier has a wider geographical range than the self-defined community claimed by Dot Registry, which is geographically limited to the United States. Therefore,.LLP as a generic string is in fact substantially exceeding the Dot Registry s community. Like.INSURANCE, LLP is not a unique US legal form. It is internationally used but understood differently in particular regions. The string LLP is not commonly known by others to refer to the community Dot Registry has defined. For that reason, the application should receive 0 points for the criterion of nexus Applicant Guidebook Module (retrieved January 23, 2014) 27 (retrieved January 23, 2014) 28 Id. 9
10 2-B Uniqueness Definition To achieve a score of 1, CPEG requires that the string has no other significant meaning beyond identifying the community described in the application" (Criterion 2-B, CPEG p. 8). 29 CPEG further defines significant meaning to mean the public in general (Criterion 2-B, CPEG p. 9). 30 Analysis Applying the CEPG, the following questions need to be considered: Issue 1: Will the public in general immediately think of the applying community when thinking of the applied-for string? (Id.) Ø No, the public will not immediately think of the community as defined by Dot Registry. CPE Guidelines refer to a worldwide public, not only a user base limited to the United States. For evidence, please consider the analysis for criterion # 2-A. Issue 2: Is the geography or activity implied by the string? (Id.) Ø The string.llp has no unique connection to any geographic identifier. For evidence, please consider the analysis above. Issue 3: Is the size and delineation of the community inconsistent with the string? (Id.) Ø As outlined in our Analysis # 2-A above, the string LLP does not signify a distinctly delineated community. Dot Registry has defined and restricted its community in particular to reduce its own efforts with no evident concern for the global body of existing LLPs. Ø. Conclusion The abbreviation LLP does not uniquely identify the community as described by Dot Registry s application. It should score 0 points (retrieved February 03, 2014) 30 Id. 10
11 Criterion # 3: Registration Policies In accordance with the AGB an application can score a total of 4 points for this criterion, 1 point each for Eligibility, Name Selection, Content and Use, and Enforcement. Definition An applicant for a community-based gtld is expected to: [...] 3. Have proposed dedicated registration and use policies for registrants in its proposed gtld. (AGB Definitions, p. 1-27) 31 Analysis The phrase dedicated registration and use policies requires a community applicant to provide a complete set of policies instead of a draft version of intentions (as provided by Dot Registry) to gain the exclusive right to administrate the respective string as a community based gtld. Based on criterion 3 of the CPEG, a successful community applicant needs to conform to the criteria of 1) eligibility, 2) name selection, 3) content and use and 4) enforcement. All together these criteria need to be included as policies in paragraph 20(e) of the New gtld application submitted to ICANN. A complete set of policies must be included, as they would appear on the website of the successful community-based gtld applicant. Criterion 3 of the Community Priority Evaluation Criteria claims that eligibility to become a registrant needs to be restricted. This means that policies of community-based applications require an explicit passage (preferentially in the beginning of the policy set) which defines who could become a registrant of the respective gtld. This part is clearly missing in the policies provided by Dot Registry in chapter 20(e) of its LLP application (Dot Registry, Application ID: , 20(e)). 32 Although the applicant mentions LLP in several parts of chapter 20(e), it does not provide a specific definition of eligible registrants. The applicant only mentions in other parts of the application that it is referring to Limited Liability Partnerships in the USA, but does not state so in its registration policies in chapter 20(e). Although, naturally a policy set for restricted gtlds needs a definition of the possible registrants (which by the way is also a procedure executed by already existing restricted gtlds like.museum or.aero). Furthermore, community applicants are asked to include content and use policies in their 31 (retrieved February 03, 2014) 32 (retrieved February 03, 2014) 11
12 applications defined as restrictions stipulated by the registry as to the content provided in and the use of any second-level domain name in the registry (Criterion 3-C, CPEG p. 13). 33 Regarding this point the applicant failed again to deliver clear policies. There are no unique policies which deal with the aspects of content and use. A few aspects regarding content are mentioned at the end of question 20(e), but there are no explicit policies which would fulfill the very stringent requirements for qualification (AGB 4.2.3, p. 4-9) 34 neither the inclusion of those aspects into a different policy string could be considered as a dedicated registration and use policy. Conclusion The application for LLP leaves out necessary elements of registration policies that conform with the New Registry Application and the AGB. Moreover, only intentions are provided but not the requested policies. The application should therefore score no more than 2 points here. Criterion # 4: Community Endorsement In accordance with the AGB an application can score between 0 and 4 points for this criterion, including a score of 2 points for each sub-criterion (Support and Opposition). Definition With respect to Support the applicant can score a maximum of 2 points if they prove documented support from the recognized community institution(s)/member organization(s) or has otherwise documented authority to represent the community (Criterion 4-A, CPEG p. 16). 35 The Guidelines clarify the requirements: Is the applicant the recognized community institution or member organization? To assess this question it has to be considered whether the community institution or member organization is the clearly recognized representative of the community (Id.). If not, it has to be considered, whether there is more than one recognized community institution or member organization (Id.). Recognized means institution(s)/ organization(s) that, through 33 (retrieved February 03, 2014) 34 (retrieved February 03, 2014) 35 (retrieved February 03, 2014) 12
13 membership or otherwise, are clearly recognized by the community members as representative of that community. (Criterion 4-A, CPEG p. 17) 36 If the applicant could not prove to represent itself, CPEG demands that the applicant has documented support from the recognized community institution(s)/member organization(s) to represent the community (Criterion 4-A, CPEG p. 16). 37 This could be irrelevant if the applicant itself has documented authority to represent the community (Id.). Analysis Doubtlessly, Dot Registry itself does not have the authority to represent the community of all entities organized as limited liability partnerships, neither the self-declared US community nor the implicated worldwide LLP community. It does not even claim to. Therefore, in a second step the panel has to analyze the documented support. If it is provided from at least one group with relevance (Id.), this may allow a score of 1 but does not suffice for a score of 2. The Guidelines further state, with respect to Support that if there would be proven support from the only national association relevant to a particular community on a national level (Criterion 4-A, CPEG p. 17) 38, it would score a 2 if the string is clearly oriented to that national level, but only a 1 if the string implicitly addresses similar communities in other nations (Id.). Dot Registry provides several letters including those of 15 Secretaries of State, one from a Limited Liability Partnership and two from NASS, the National Association of Secretaries of State. All of these letters are from an US origin. As mentioned before, the string addresses similar communities in other nations but the applicant does not have an endorsement from a single LLP outside of the US. Furthermore, neither the Secretaries of State as a group nor the NASS recommend Dot Registry as the only possible applicant for becoming the registry of a corporate identifier TLD like LLP. 39 They just refer to the importance of explicit policies regarding the ability to register a domain name to prevent confusion and distrust amongst consumers and future registrants. 36 Id. 37 Id. 38 Id (retrieved February 03, 2014) 13
14 Considering Dot Registry s own statement (Dot Registry, Application ID: , 18(b)) 40, in the majority of the 50 states of the US, Secretaries of State are the relevant authorities to register business entities. Assuming this as correct, Dot Registry has not even shown to have support from at least 1/3 of the self-defined relevant authorities, having presented letters of support from only 15 different Secretaries of State in the US. In fact it has to be doubted that Secretaries of State even represent this US community at all. It is mandatory for an entity in several US states to register with a Secretary of State, but this does definitely not signify that these Secretaries are in a position to speak for these companies, same as tax authorities cannot do so only because it is mandatory for the entities to pay taxes with them. The requirement that institution(s)/organization(s) representing a majority of the overall community addressed (Criterion 4-A, CPEG p. 16) 41 fails by far. As stated in the CPE Guidelines, a 0 will be scored on support if the applicant fails to provide documentation showing support from recognized community institutions/community member organizations or does not provide documentation showing that it has the authority to represent the community (Criterion 4-A, CPEG p. 18). 42 Conclusion Dot Registry can neither prove support from the majority of the relevant community institutions/members nor that it has the authority to represent the community. Therefore it should score 0 points for this criterion. Overall Conclusion Based on the aforementioned analysis, we consider the Dot Registry application for LLP a case of false-positive as defined in module of the AGB a string sought by an applicant who refers to a community construed merely to get a sought-after generic word as a gtld string. (AGB 4.2.3, p. 4-9) 43 Dot Registry admits in its application that the string LLP holds meaning all around the world and not just in the United States. Yet it decided to apply for.llp instead of.llpusa addressing the national level of the applied for US registered community (retrieved February 03, 2014) 41 (retrieved February 03, 2014) 42 Id (retrieved February 03, 2014) 14
15 Considering that a positive CPE excludes all other applications, ICANN has thoughtfully implemented the Criteria and Guidelines in the AGB in order to give maximum transparency to this economically important issue (not only to the competing applicants but also to the community). Carefully applying ICANN s criteria for a community-based string, it is obvious that Dot Registry has not provided sufficient evidence to score for a positive CPE. Additionally the Dot Registry community application for.llp fails to match the fundamental principles of ICANN s New gtld Program as pointed out, amongst others, in the ICANN bylaws 44 as well as in the Approved Resolution of the NGPC in realization of the GAC Beijing advice. 45 Therefore Dot Registry s application for LLP should be rejected as a community-based string; as a standard application, it should have to participate in regular contention-set resolution processes on the same terms as all other applicants. Sincerely, Thomas Mörz, CEO of InterNetX GmbH CEO of myllp GmbH 44 (retrieved January 23, 2014) 45 (retrieved January 23, 2014) 15
Re: Letter of Opposition on Community Priority Evaluation for.llc ( )
InterNetX GmbH Maximilianstr. 6 93047 Regensburg Germany Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 USA InterNetX GmbH Maximilianstr. 6
2- Sep- 13. Dear ICANN and Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), Re: Community Priority Evaluation Guidelines
2- Sep- 13 Dear ICANN and Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), Re: Community Priority Evaluation Guidelines Big Room Inc. is the community priority applicant for the.eco gtld 1 on behalf of the Global Environmental
New gtld Program. Community Priority Evaluation Result. Report Date: 8 April 2016
New gtld Program Community Priority Evaluation Report Report Date: 8 April 2016 Application ID: 1-1309-46695 Applied-for String: KIDS Applicant Name: DotKids Foundation Limited Overall Community Priority
DotMusic Limited s Reconsideration Request 16-5: the Council of Europe Report DGI (2016)17. Dear Chairman Disspain and members of the BGC:
1900 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1110 +1 202 261 3300 Main +1 202 261 3333 Fax www.dechert.com ARIF HYDER ALI Contact Information Redacted Contact Information Redacted Direct Contact Information
Annex to NGPC Resolution NG01. NGPC Scorecard of 1As Regarding Non- Safeguard Advice in the GAC Beijing Communiqué
ANNEX 1 to NGPC Resolution No. 2013.06.04.NG01 NGPC Scorecard of s Regarding Non- Safeguard Advice in the GAC Beijing Communiqué 4 June 2013 This document contains the NGPC s response to the GAC Beijing
NGPC Agenda 28 September 2013
NGPC Agenda 28 September 2013 Consent Agenda: Approval of Minutes from 13 August 2013 Main Agenda: Remaining Items from Beijing and Durban GAC Advice: Updates and Actions a).vin, and.wine (Fadi Chehadé)
IN THE MATTER OF AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION
IN THE MATTER OF AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Gulf Cooperation Council Building King Khaled Road, Diplomatic Area
Reconsideration Request Form. 3. Description of specific action you are seeking to have reconsidered.
1. Requester Information Reconsideration Request Form Name: Constantinos Roussos Address: Contact Information Redacted Email: Contact nformation Redacted with a copy to counsel, Contact Information Redacted
BETWEEN CORN LAKE, LLC. Claimant. -and- INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS. Respondent FINAL DECLARATION
ICDR CASE NO. 01-15-0002-9938 BETWEEN CORN LAKE, LLC Claimant -and- INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS Respondent FINAL DECLARATION Independent Review Panel Mark Morril Michael Ostrove
Challenging Unfavorable ICANN Objection and Application Decisions
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Challenging Unfavorable ICANN Objection and Application Decisions Leveraging the Appeals Process and Courts to Overcome ICANN Determinations Absent
INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION
INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION Dot Sport Limited ) ICDR CASE NO. 01-15-0002-9483 ) Claimant, ) ) and ) ) INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED ) NAMES AND NUMBERS, )
The new gtlds - rights protection mechanisms
The new gtlds - rights protection mechanisms Tony Willoughby Johannesburg 14 April 2014 Session Outline Pre-Delegation Objection Mechanisms Trade Mark Clearing House ( TMCH ) Uniform Rapid Suspension (
Final GNSO Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gtlds
Final GNSO Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gtlds STATUS OF THIS DOCUMENT This is the Final Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms of certain international
Re: Support for.music Community Application and Response to Music Community Obstruction
Dr. Steve Crocker, Chairman of the ICANN Board; Fadi Chehadé, ICANN President & CEO; Akram Attallah, ICANN President of Generic Domains Division; Christine Willett, ICANN Vice-President of gtld Operations;
Final Issue Report on IGO-INGO Access to the UDRP & URS Date: 25 May 2014
FINAL ISSUE REPORT ON AMENDING THE UNIFORM DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY AND THE UNIFORM RAPID SUSPENSION PROCEDURE FOR ACCESS BY PROTECTED INTERNATIONAL GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL NON- GOVERNMENTAL
21 December GNSO Council Review of the Hyderabad GAC Communiqué. From: James Bladel, GNSO Chair To: Steve Crocker, ICANN Board
21 December 2016 GNSO Council Review of the Hyderabad GAC Communiqué From: James Bladel, GNSO Chair To: Steve Crocker, ICANN Board Dear Members of the ICANN Board, On behalf of the GNSO Council, I am hereby
30- December New gtld Program Committee:
30- December- 2013 New gtld Program Committee: We urge you to take immediate action to avoid the significant problems of allowing both singular and plural forms of the same TLD string. Fortunately, the
INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION
INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION AMAZON EU S.A.R.L., v. Claimant, INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS, No. 01-16-0000-7056 ORDER NO. 2 RE MOTION TO
EXPERT DETERMINATION LEGAL RIGHTS OBJECTION DotMusic Limited v. Victor Cross Case No. LRO
ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER EXPERT DETERMINATION LEGAL RIGHTS OBJECTION DotMusic Limited v. Victor Cross Case No. LRO2013-0062 1. The Parties The Objector/Complainant ( Objector ) is DotMusic Limited
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:16-cv-00862-RGK-JC Document 112 Filed 06/14/16 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:4432 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 16-CV-00862 RGK (JCx) Date
NEW GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN NAMES ( gtld ) DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE OBJECTION FORM TO BE COMPLETED BY THE OBJECTOR
International Centre for Expertise Centre international d'expertise NEW GENERIC TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN NAMES ( gtld ) DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE OBJECTION FORM TO BE COMPLETED BY THE OBJECTOR Objections to
GNSO Working Session on the CWG Rec6 Report. Margie Milam 4 December 2010
GNSO Working Session on the CWG Rec6 Report Margie Milam 4 December 2010 Overview of CWG Task Rec6 states that: Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public
INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION
INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION DESPEGAR ONLINE SRL, DONUTS INC., ) ICDR CASE NO. 01-15-0002-8061 FAMOUS FOUR MEDIA LIMITED, ) FEGISTRY LLC, AND RADIX FZC, ) ) And
INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION
INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION GULF COOPERATION COUNCIL, ) ICDR CASE NO. 01-14-0002-1065 ) Claimant, ) ) and ) ) INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED ) NAMES AND NUMBERS,
The Governmental Advisory Committee
The Governmental Advisory Committee Introduction Getting to the know the GAC Role of the GAC What does the GAC do? Working Methods How does the GAC work? GAC Working Groups (WGs) What are they and what
26 th Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference
American Bar Association Intellectual Property Law Section 26 th Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference The New gtlds: Dispute Resolution Procedures During Evaluation, Trademark Post Delegation Dispute
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
Case :-cv-00-rgk-jc Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: Jeffrey A. LeVee (State Bar No. ) jlevee@jonesday.com Kate Wallace (State Bar No. ) kwallace@jonesday.com Rachel H. Zernik (State Bar No. )
Issues Report IDN ccpdp 02 April Bart Boswinkel Issue Manager
Issues Report IDN ccpdp 02 April 2009 Bart Boswinkel Issue Manager Table of contents 1. Introduction 3 1.1. Background 3 1.2 Process 4 2 Recommendation 5 2.1 Introduction 5 2.2. Summary of Issues 5 2.3
gtld Applicant Guidebook (v ) Module 3
gtld Applicant Guidebook (v. 2012-01-11) Module 3 11 January 2012 Objection Procedures This module describes two types of mechanisms that may affect an application: I. The procedure by which ICANN s Governmental
DETERMINATION OF THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE (BGC) RECONSIDERATION REQUEST APRIL 2014
DETERMINATION OF THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE (BGC) RECONSIDERATION REQUEST 14-9 29 APRIL 2014 The Requester, Merck KGaA, seeks reconsideration of the Expert Determinations, and ICANN s acceptance of
Session 2: The importance of institutions and standards for soft connectivity
ASEM Seminar, Tokyo 12 September 2018 Hae-Won Jun, KNDA Session 2: The importance of institutions and standards for soft connectivity How is digital connectivity important between Asia and Europe and what
Reconsideration Request by Ruby Pike, LLC. Ruby Pike, LLC, as a party adversely affected by an ICANN action...
Reconsideration Request by Ruby Pike, LLC Regarding Action Contrary to Established ICANN Policies Pertaining to Limited Public Interest Objections to New gtld Applications Independent Objector v. Ruby
THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR EXPERTISE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. CASE No. EXP/413/ICANN/30 PROF. ALAIN PELLET, INDEPENDENT OBJECTOR
THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR EXPERTISE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CASE No. EXP/413/ICANN/30 PROF. ALAIN PELLET, INDEPENDENT OBJECTOR (FRANCE) vs/ STEEL HILL, LLC (USA) This document is a
Attachment to Module 3
Attachment to Module 3 These Procedures were designed with an eye toward timely and efficient dispute resolution. As part of the New gtld Program, these Procedures apply to all proceedings administered
INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR ADR CASE NO. EXP/619 FINAL EXPERT DETERMINATION. Sole Party:
INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR ADR CASE NO. EXP/619 FINAL EXPERT DETERMINATION Sole Party: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Under the ICC Rules for the Administration
Jurisdiction, Choice of Law and Dispute Resolution in
Jurisdiction, Choice of Law and Dispute Resolution in International E-Commerce Boston Bar Association International Arbitration Committee Richard Johnston and Ken Slade Hale and Dorr LLP January 24, 2000
GAC Communiqué Buenos Aires, Argentina
Governmental Advisory Committee Buenos Aires, 20 November 2013 GAC Communiqué Buenos Aires, Argentina I. Introduction The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Independence and Accountability: The Future of ICANN. Comments of the Center for Democracy & Technology. submitted to
Independence and Accountability: The Future of ICANN Comments of the Center for Democracy & Technology submitted to The National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology Cooperation The Director Brussels 02.04.2014 EUROPEAN COMMISSION COMMENTS TO THE.WINE AND.VIN EXPERT LEGAL ADVICE
Updates to Module 3: Dispute Resolution Procedures
Updates to Module 3: Dispute Resolution Procedures 30 May 2009 Module 3 of the draft Applicant Guidebook describes dispute resolution procedures applicable in the gtld application process; see the full
Applicant Guidebook. Proposed Final Version Module 3
Applicant Guidebook Proposed Final Version Module 3 Please note that this is a "proposed" version of the Applicant Guidebook that has not been approved as final by the Board of Directors. Potential applicants
This English translation is provided for information purposes only. The official version of this document is available in German.
Translation of Court Order of Regional Court of Bonn of 30 May 2018 Docket no. 10 O 171/18 Certified copy Regional Court of Bonn Court Order In the preliminary injunction proceedings of Internet Corporation
Update to Module 2: Geographical Names
Update to Module 2: Geographical Names 30 May 2009 This section appears in Module 2, Evaluation Procedures; see the full module at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new gtlds/draft evaluation procedures clean
TRANSFER OF PRIORITY RIGHTS PARIS CONVENTION ARTICLE 4A(1)
TRANSFER OF PRIORITY RIGHTS PARIS CONVENTION ARTICLE 4A(1) BACKGROUND This report describes the results of a study carried out to identify the various national requirements for the effective transfer of
New York County Lawyers Association Continuing Legal Education Institute 14 Vesey Street, New York, N.Y (212)
New York County Lawyers Association Continuing Legal Education Institute 14 Vesey Street, New York, N.Y. 10007 (212) 267-6646 Who is Who in the Global Economy And Why it Matters June 20, 2014; 6:00 PM-6:50
MINISTERIAL DECLARATION
1 MINISTERIAL DECLARATION The fight against foreign bribery towards a new era of enforcement Preamble Paris, 16 March 2016 We, the Ministers and Representatives of the Parties to the Convention on Combating
Client Privilege in Intellectual Property Advice
Client Privilege in Intellectual Property Advice Prepared by the Commission on Intellectual Property I The WIPO/AIPPI Conference on 22-23 May 2008 1. Client privilege in intellectual property advice was
REMITTANCE PRICES W O R L D W I D E
Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized REMITTANCE PRICES W O R L D W I D E PAYMENT SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT GROUP FINANCIAL AND PRIVATE
.Brand TLD Designation Application
.Brand TLD Designation Application Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90094 Attention: New gtld Program Staff RE: Application
Germany 2016 Salary Criteria and Access by Nationals of Balkan Countries. Why This Matters
flash Alert A Publication for Global Mobility and Tax Professionals by KPMG s Global Mobility Services Practice Germany 2016 Salary Criteria and Access by Nationals of Balkan Countries by Sebastian Klaus
.VERSICHERUNG. Eligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy (ERDRP) for.versicherung Domain Names
.VERSICHERUNG Eligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy (ERDRP) for.versicherung Domain Names Overview Chapter I - Eligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy (ERDRP)... 2 1. Purpose...
Attachment 3..Brand TLD Designation Application
Attachment 3.Brand TLD Designation Application Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ( ICANN ) 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90094 Attention: New gtld Program
Mr. Rod Beckstrom CEO and President Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA
Josh Bourne, President December 21, 2011 Phil Lodico, Vice President Bacardi & Company Limited Carlson/Carlson Hotels Worldwide/Carlson Restaurants Worldwide Mr. Rod Beckstrom CEO and President Internet
INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION
INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION CORN LAKE, LLC, ICDR CASE NO. 01-15-0002-9938 Claimant, v. INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS, Respondent. ICANN
EURid s. Quarterly update 2015 Q4 PROGRESS REPORT
EURid s Quarterly update 20 PROGRESS REPORT Table of contents At a glance... 3 Highlights... 4 EURid.eu... 5 The.eu domain... 6 The registrants... 9 The registrars... AT A GLANCE EURid s Progress report
REMITTANCE PRICES WORLDWIDE
REMITTANCE PRICES WORLDWIDE THE WORLD BANK PAYMENT SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT GROUP FINANCIAL AND PRIVATE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT VICE PRESIDENCY ISSUE NO. 3 NOVEMBER, 2011 AN ANALYSIS OF TRENDS IN THE AVERAGE TOTAL
DRAFT WORKING GROUP CHARTER
DRAFT WORKING GROUP CHARTER Working Group Charter for a Policy Development Process for IGO and INGO Access to Curative Rights Protections WG Name: IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Working
EXPERT DETERMINATION LEGAL RIGHTS OBJECTION Starbucks (HK) Limited v. Amazon EU S.à.r.l. Case No. LRO
ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER EXPERT DETERMINATION LEGAL RIGHTS OBJECTION Starbucks (HK) Limited v. Amazon EU S.à.r.l. Case No. LRO2013-0027 1. The Parties The Objector/Complainant ( Objector ) is Starbucks
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ICDR) Independent Review Panel CASE #
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ICDR) Independent Review Panel CASE # 50 2013 001083 In the matter of an Independent Review Process (IRP) pursuant to the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Report to Municipal Council
Report to Municipal Council Meeting Date: February 15, 2017 Decision Requested: No Direction Only: Yes Report Date: February 8, 2017 Priority: Medium Type of Meeting: Open Report Title: Elections Act Amendments
THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR EXPERTISE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. CASE No. EXP/411/ICANN/28 PROF. ALAIN PELLET, INDEPENDENT OBJECTOR
THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR EXPERTISE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CASE No. EXP/411/ICANN/28 PROF. ALAIN PELLET, INDEPENDENT OBJECTOR (FRANCE) vs/ SILVER GLEN, LLC (USA) This document is an
Amended Charter of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Date of Adoption from ccnso and GNSO Councils: 27 June 2018 version 2
Amended Charter of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Date of Adoption from ccnso and GNSO Councils: 27 June 2018 version 2 Mission The Customer Standing Committee (CSC) has been established to perform
Swiss audit oversight in the international context
International Auditing Conference with third countries Better cooperation between public oversight systems Swiss audit oversight in the international context Frank Schneider, Executive Director FAOA Swiss
A GAtewAy to A Bet ter Life Education aspirations around the World September 2013
A Gateway to a Better Life Education Aspirations Around the World September 2013 Education Is an Investment in the Future RESOLUTE AGREEMENT AROUND THE WORLD ON THE VALUE OF HIGHER EDUCATION HALF OF ALL
DRAFT WORKING GROUP CHARTER
DRAFT WORKING GROUP CHARTER Working Group Charter for a Policy Development Process for IGO and INGO Access to Curative Rights Protections WG Name: IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Working
Internet Domain Names: Background and Policy Issues
Internet Domain Names: Background and Policy Issues Lennard G. Kruger Specialist in Science and Technology Policy November 26, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov 97-868 Summary Navigating
INTERNATIONALISATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION: A CLOSER LOOK. Jon Deer and Gabi Lombardo GJForesight
INTERNATIONALISATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION: A CLOSER LOOK Jon Deer and Gabi Lombardo GJForesight INTERNATIONAL STUDENT TRENDS BACKGROUND CLOSER LOOK AT STUDENTS INTERNATIONALISATION PUSH AND PULL BACKGROUND
Summary of Changes to New gtld Registry Agreement. (Proposed Draft 5 February 2013)
Summary of Changes to New gtld Registry Agreement (Proposed Draft 5 February 2013) The table below sets out the proposed changes to the draft registry agreement for new gtlds. Additions are reflected in
WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION OF PRIVATE FINANCIAL ASSETS
WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION OF PRIVATE FINANCIAL ASSETS Munich, November 2018 Copyright Allianz 11/19/2018 1 MORE DYNAMIC POST FINANCIAL CRISIS Changes in the global wealth middle classes in millions 1,250
REPORT of the 1 st meeting of the ASEM Working Group on Customs Matters (AWC) 14/15 May 2008 Lille/France. Introductory Note
REPORT of the 1 st meeting of the ASEM Working Group on Customs Matters (AWC) 14/15 May 2008 Lille/France Introductory Note At the 7 th ASEM Customs Directors General/Commissioners' meeting in Yokohama
Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy
Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy This Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (the SDRP ) is incorporated by reference into the Registration Agreement for the Amazon Registry Services, Inc. top-level domain.bot
However, a full account of their extent and makeup has been unknown up until now.
SPECIAL REPORT F2008 African International Student Census However, a full account of their extent and makeup has been unknown up until now. or those who have traveled to many countries throughout the world,
INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION
INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION ASIA GREEN IT SYSTEM BILGISAYAR SAN. VE TIC. LTD. STI., ICDR CASE NO. 01-15-0005-9838 Claimant, and INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED
24 Criteria for the Recognition of Inventors and the Procedure to Settle Disputes about the Recognition of Inventors
24 Criteria for the Recognition of Inventors and the Procedure to Settle Disputes about the Recognition of Inventors Research Fellow: Toshitaka Kudo Under the existing Japanese laws, the indication of
dotberlin GmbH & Co. KG
Eligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy (ERDRP) 1. This policy has been adopted by all accredited Domain Name Registrars for Domain Names ending in.berlin. 2. The policy is between the Registrar
IGO/INGO Identifiers Protection Policy Implementation. Meeting with the IRT ICANN October 2015
IGO/INGO Identifiers Protection Policy Implementation Meeting with the IRT ICANN 54 21 October 2015 Agenda 1 2 3 Background on Policy and Current ICANN Work on IGO/INGO Protections Presentation of Approach
MEMORANDUM. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Thomas Nygren and Pontus Stenbeck, Hamilton Advokatbyrå
MEMORANDUM To From Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Thomas Nygren and Pontus Stenbeck, Hamilton Advokatbyrå Date 15 December 2017 Subject gtld Registration Directory Services and the
THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR EXPERTISE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. CASE No. EXP/417/ICANN/34
THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR EXPERTISE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CASE No. EXP/417/ICANN/34 PROF. ALAIN PELLET, INDEPENDENT OBJECTOR (FRANCE) vs/ GOOSE FEST, LLC (USA) (Consolidated with
*,MERCK. Date. Phone Fax j02013
l* *,MERCK il 'l II Merck KGaA Gemmy Frmkfurter Str. 250 64293 Dmstadt Gherine Ghalaby Chairman of New gtld Program Committee Cherine. Chalabv@icann. org Date 29j02013 Division/Dept. LE-Group Legal & Compliance
Introducing ICANN s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
Introducing ICANN s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) What is the GAC? The GAC is an advisory committee to ICANN, created under the ICANN ByLaws. It provides advice to ICANN on public policy aspects
CREATING AN ENABLING LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK. Prof. Maria Chiara Malaguti Senior Legal Advisor World Bank
CREATING AN ENABLING LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Prof. Maria Chiara Malaguti Senior Legal Advisor World Bank 1 FROM GENERAL PRINCIPLE 3 TO THE 2009 REMITTANCES SURVEY 2 A. GENERAL PRINCIPLE 3 OF THE
Reducing the costs of transferring remittances: How realistic is the proposed target for Post- 2015?
Reducing the costs of transferring remittances: How realistic is the proposed target for Post- 2015? The 13 th Coordination Meeting on International Migration New York February 12, 2015 Massimo Cirasino,
Summary of Changes to Registry Agreement for New gtlds. (Proposed Final version against v.4)
Summary of Changes to Registry Agreement for New gtlds (Proposed Final version against v.4) The table below sets out the proposed changes to the base registry agreement for new gtlds. Additions are reflected
Background to and Status of Work on Protections for Names and Acronyms of the Red Cross movement and International Governmental Organizations (IGOs)
Background to and Status of Work on Protections for Names and Acronyms of the Red Cross movement and International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) 2 June 2016 Overview Current status of protections What
Submission of Adopted GNSO Council Review of the Johannesburg GAC Communiqué
7 August 2017 Submission of Adopted Council Review of the Johannesburg GAC Communiqué From: James Bladel, Chair Donna Austin, Council Vice-Chair Heather Forrest, Council Vice-Chair To: Steve Crocker, ICANN
Summary of Changes to Base Agreement for New gtlds Draft for Discussion
Draft for Discussion During 2008, ICANN has reviewed and revised the form of gtld agreement for new gtld registries. The proposed new form of agreement is intended to be more simple and streamlined where
Case 3:16-cv JHM-DW Document 11 Filed 01/26/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 218
Case 3:16-cv-00012-JHM-DW Document 11 Filed 01/26/16 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 218 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16CV-00012-JHM COMMERICAL
the domain name is not identical to the mark on which the registrant based its Sunrise registration; (2)
SDRP Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy This policy is to be read together with the General Terms & Conditions and words and phrases used in this policy have the same meaning attributed to them in the General
(Note: This draft agreement is subject to approval, and to changes as the evaluation period progresses and additional input is received.
Page 1 of 19 (Note: This draft agreement is subject to approval, and to changes as the evaluation period progresses and additional input is received.) REGISTRY AGREEMENT This REGISTRY AGREEMENT (this "Agreement")
REGULATING THE FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES OF SOUTH AFRICAN POLITICAL PARTIES DURING ELECTIONS
POLICY BRIEF JANUARY 2017 REGULATING THE FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES OF SOUTH AFRICAN POLITICAL PARTIES DURING ELECTIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In all democracies, elections are the process through which political
Business Day: means a working day as defined by the Provider in its Supplemental Rules.
RRDRP Rules These Rules are in effect for all RRDRP proceedings. Administrative proceedings for the resolution of disputes under the Registry Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure shall be governed
Proposal to the General Shareholder Meeting Regarding the Approval of Vietinbank s strategy in expanding oversea networks
VIETNAM JOINT STOCK COMMERCIAL BANK FOR INDUSTRY AND TRADE 108 Tran Hung Dao, Hoan Kiem, Hanoi Tel: 043.9421030 Fax: 043.9421032 Certificate for the business registration No 0100111948 issued on 14/05/2013
.XN--MGBCA7DZDO SUNRISE DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY
.XN--MGBCA7DZDO SUNRISE DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY This Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (the SDRP ) is incorporated by reference into the Registration Agreement. This SDRP is effective as of 29 July 2014.
GERMAN COMPETITION LAW CHANGES: NEW RULES ON MERGER CONTROL, MARKET DOMINANCE, DAMAGES CLAIMS, AND CARTEL FINES
The M&A Lawyer GERMAN COMPETITION LAW CHANGES: NEW RULES ON MERGER CONTROL, MARKET DOMINANCE, DAMAGES CLAIMS, AND CARTEL FINES By Andreas Grünwald Andreas Grünwald is a partner in the Berlin office of
This Class Action Settlement May Affect Your Rights. A Court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.
LEGAL NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION Gladys Flores, et al. v. Locus Telecommunications, Inc., et al. Case No. BC492907 Consumers of Locus Telecommunications, Inc. s Prepaid Calling Cards
September Press Release /SM/9256 SC/8059 Role of business in armed conflict can be crucial for good or ill
AI Index: POL 34/006/2004 Public Document Mr. Dzidek Kedzia Chief Research and Right to Development Branch AI Ref: UN 411/2004 29.09.2004 Submission by Amnesty International under Decision 2004/116 on
BEST PRACTICES IN REGULATION OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
BEST PRACTICES IN REGULATION OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES QUERY Could you provide best practice examples on how to regulate lobbying activities? CONTENT 1. Lobbying, corruption risks and the need for regulation
.FARMERS DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION POLICIES
.FARMERS DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION POLICIES Page 1 of 14 CHAPTER 1. Definitions, scope of application and eligibility Article 1. Definitions Throughout these Policies, the following capitalized terms have
60 th UIA CONGRESS Budapest / Hungary October 28 November 1, UIA Biotechnology Law Commission Sunday, October 30, 2016
60 th UIA CONGRESS Budapest / Hungary October 28 November 1, 2016 UIA Biotechnology Law Commission Sunday, October 30, 2016 Hacking Pacemakers and Beyond: Cybersecurity Issues in Healthcare Cyber Security
There was no legislative change or proposed legislative change affecting trade marks.
APAA TRADE MARKS COMMITTEE HONG KONG REPORT 2009 by Andrea Fong, Rebecca Lo and Anthony Tong LEGISLATION There was no legislative change or proposed legislative change affecting trade marks. TRADE MARKS