Though late just wanted to support the view that a contract should not be mandatory and accreditation or some other method of accountability be adopted. Sincerely, Zahid Jamil Barrister-at-law Jamil & Jamil Barristers-at-law 219-221 Central Hotel Annexe Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan Cell: +923008238230 Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025 Fax: +92 21 5655026 www.jamilandjamil.com *** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink *** -----Original Message----- From: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com> Sender: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:41:13 To: 'Phil Corwin'<pcorwin@butera-andrews.com>; 'michael@palage.com'<michael@palage.com>; 'philip.sheppard@aim.be'<philip.sheppard@aim.be>; 'bc-gnso@icann.org'<bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft BC Position on Establishing Standard Contract for UDRP Providers Great -- thanks. Phil -I would also urge removal of the language in your text calling for ICANN to sanction dispute providers. Let's focus on uniform rules governing their qualifications and responsibilities. The contract/sanctions model would not only run into problems with IGOs as Mike notes, but would also undermine the whole nature of independent third party dispute resolution providers. People use these providers exactly because they are independent and trusted third party not affiliated with ICANN. But that's not to say that they shouldn't be subject to high standards and uniform qualifications. If an entity fails to meet the standards, then they should be deaccredited. Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 ________________________________ From: Phil Corwin [mailto:pcorwin@butera-andrews.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 9:31 AM To: 'michael@palage.com'; Deutsch, Sarah B; 'philip.sheppard@aim.be'; 'bc-gnso@icann.org' Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft BC Position on Establishing Standard Contract for UDRP Providers Consensus understood/I'm working on a revised draft and will circulate it later today. Philip S. Corwin Partner, Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875/Office 202-255-6172/Cell "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 09:28 AM To: 'Deutsch, Sarah B' <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>; 'Philip Sheppard' <philip.sheppard@aim.be>; Phil Corwin; bc-gnso@icann.org <bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft BC Position on Establishing Standard Contract for UDRP Providers Sarah, I share your concerns. In fact this type of rigid "contract" language is what stalled individual ccTLD participation within the ICANN process for so long. It was only after ICANN adopted an accountability framework document that more participation/recognition occurred. I think Phil's concerns can be address without the hard coded "contract" language. Having dealt with IGOs over the past several years I can tell you that getting them to sign "contracts" can be a complicated process. Therefore making WIPO sign a UDRP provider contract is likely to run into some complications that would likely draw the support/empathy of the GAC. Do we really want to pick that fight? Having dealt with WIPO during the past 11 years ago (remember that first UDRP meeting at Georgetown Sarah/Marilyn - seems almost like yesterday) I think as a trustee of this process WIPO would be in agreement about ensuring some uniformity of the rules. So let's figure how to make them part of the solution, instead of making them part of the problem. Just my two cents. Best regards, Michael From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 8:50 AM To: 'Philip Sheppard'; 'Phil Corwin'; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft BC Position on Establishing Standard Contract for UDRP Providers My concern is that by includng the words "contract" this will be misread by ICANN as a green light to go forward with regulation having nothing to do with these parties' qualifications even if the idea of an "other mechanism" is also included as an option. The following language addresses my concern but keeps the same meaning Phil originally intended: The Business Constituency (BC) cannot support approval of this or any other UDRP accreditation application at this time on the grounds that no new UDRP providers should be accredited until ICANN implements with all accredited providers a standard mechanism for establishing uniform rules and procedures and flexible means of delineating and enforcing arbitration provider responsibilities. In the rest of the document, I'd recommend replacing "contact" with "standard mechanism." Thanks, Sarah Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 ________________________________ From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 3:29 AM To: 'Phil Corwin'; Deutsch, Sarah B; bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft BC Position on Establishing Standard Contract for UDRP Providers I share Sarah's concern but agree with Phil that our current language is flexible: The Business Constituency (BC) cannot support approval of this or any other UDRP accreditation application at this time on the grounds that no new UDRP providers should be accredited until ICANN implements a standard contract with all accredited providers or develops some other mechanism for establishing uniform rules and procedures and flexible means of delineating and enforcing arbitration provider responsibilities. (emphasis added) Philip