Just read it all. My summary: * Vistaprint complained that its application for '.webs' was found to be confusingly similar to a number of applications for '.web'. It points out that in other single/plural cases, ICANN has taken a closer look but didn't in its case. * The IRP panel recommends that ICANN's Board specifically look at the issue of whether Vistaprint was treated equally and fairly. * It notes that this recommendation is not binding. * It notes that ICANN's Board Governance Committee did a good job on Vistaprint's reconsideration request and covered the issues fairly and in depth. The panel digs into the IRP process itself a little - as have the other IRP reviews. It finds: * That ICANN must stop claiming that the IRP should be deferential toward ICANN's decisions. The issue is decided. * That IRP decisions can be both binding and non-binding. They are binding when the panel makes a finding but not binding when it comes to deciding what ICANN has to do in response. * In other words, if the IRP finds that something was not done correctly and has to be fixed, ICANN is obliged to do so. But it is not obliged to do what the IRP comes up with as a solution. It can devise its own solution. * The panel is not happy about its restricted role. It finds that the rules covering the IRP and the rules covering the third party review experts contradict ICANN's own bylaws. My personal view: * The changes that ICANN's legal department made to the IRP and the third-party expert rules in order to ensure that ICANN Corporate can never be overruled continue to cause serious problems. * Put simply: ICANN has created its own ICANN-friendly version of what are legal/arbitration norms - and as a result they don't work properly. * There is no effective way to challenge decisions made through the new gTLD process. Each accountability step moves further and further away from addressing the actual core issue in a particular case. This just creates frustration and paperwork. * I can't help but feel that this constant drive to create ICANN-friendly special versions of commonly agreed processes is exactly what we are looking at with the MEM accountability model proposed by ICANN. * I wish the ICANN/internet community would stop telling itself that ICANN is somehow so special that it needs custom rules for everything it does. It doesn't and this approach creates more problems and more confusion down the line. Kieren On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> wrote:

Although I have not read this decision thoroughly, it seems very interesting. The arbitrators hold that ICANN is the prevailing party , but cite concerns about the IRP process. I look forward to reading it more carefully.

J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer

From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, October 11, 2015 at 6:13 PM To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] New (and long) IRP Decision

Vistaprint v. ICANN. Issued October 9. Have not read it yet....

https://www.icann.org/resources/files/1194117-2015-10-09-en <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources...>

Greg

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

I disagree, ICANN is very special and needs special rules because of its responsibilities. Ron