[Hague-jur-commercial-law] Open Letter to Delegates

[Judith Sapp]

7 December 2003

Dear Michael:

This is a personal response rather than an official INTA response.  INTA
submitted comments on the working draft that raised serious concerns =
about
Article 3.  These concerns have been ignored by the US and the EU.  They
were addressed by a Swiss proposal which the US and the EU did not =
accept or
even take seriously.  From what has happened this past week, I think it =
is
fairly clear that the next working draft will be even worse than the =
last
one.  It will, for example, incorporate a joint US-EU proposal on =
Article 5
that will require a court other than the chosen court to decline
jurisdiction unless, inter alia, "the application of the agreement would
lead to a very serious injustice."  Injustice is ok.  Serious injustice =
is
ok.  Only "very serious injustice" is a problem.

I hope that INTA will agree officially that this is outrageous.

Best regards, Judith =20

Judith Sapp
Komondorok LLC
111 West Street
Portland, Maine 04102
United States of America

207.842.6003  Telephone
207.842.0743  Facsimile
judith@judithsapp.com  Email


-----Original Message-----
From: hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org
[mailto:hague-jur-commercial-law-admin@lists.essential.org] On Behalf Of
Michael Sondow
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 7:40 PM
To: Hague list
Subject: Re: [Hague-jur-commercial-law] Open Letter to Delegates

Hi, Manon. Nice to hear from you.

I'm very sorry if my remarks were interpreted as a lack of confidence,
as your reply suggests they may have been. I surely did not mean to
imply that the people like yourself and Miriam Nesbet who are holding
down the fort for the rest of us were not doing a great job.

What I did mean to suggest was that, from the sound of the protest
letter from the net coalition, things have arrived at a critical pass.
When an RIAA/MPAA rep can leave the negotiations, sure that their
outrageous wording will prevail, it makes me think that, short of a
mobilization, this ugly piece of international legislation is going to
get rammed through after all, a finality which upsets me very much.

You wrote:

> Maybe your organization could ask for accreditation at the Hague
> Conference and come sit with the MPA/RIAA representative and the
> trademark owners rep (INTA)? We sure need support!

I don't think the ICIIU can be accredited. It simply hasn't the
credibility and, after the ICANN fiasco, has lost its adherents and much
of its raison d'=EAtre. If I thought there were any chance of my being
able to grapple again with the MPA/RIAA and the INTA, I would take it,
rest assured. But trying to accredit the ICIIU won't work, I'm afraid.
The Hague secretariate has made it clear, through their choice of
invitees to their meetings, that they aren't interested in having
consumer advocates join in the proceedings, and even if they were the
ICIIU has no status or repercussion to do so. What's needed at the Hague
convention negotiations is some sort of coalition of international
consumer representatives with perhaps the international cooperative
movement. That would have some clout.

We made the mistake of not trying to organize an international
resistance from among such groups long ago, and now it is undoubtedly
too late.

M.=20

You wrote:

> FYI Miriam Nisbet (ALA) is at The Hague Conference Special Commission
> Meeting. She is one of the Delegate for the US and is participating
> actively.
> I cannot speak for Miriam but I am grateful to the US delegation for
> inviting me to participate in the debates. No other delegation (from =
ANY
> othe country) includes any public interest representative. Everyone on
> the US delegation knows my concerns about consumers and non-negotiated
> contract choice of forum clause.
> My notes for this week meeting should be posted shortly.
_______________________________________________
Hague-jur-commercial-law mailing list
Hague-jur-commercial-law@lists.essential.org
http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/hague-jur-commercial-law