Dear BC members,
We are carefully monitoring
on-line discussions regarding the draft BC position on UDRP arbitration
providers and we thank the drafters and contributors. We are not experts on
this issue, but while searching the ICANN site for relevant official
information we found that:
1)
The approved dispute resolution service providers are 4 and not 2
(see http://www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/approved-providers.htm).
The draft BC position speaks about “… an effective duopoly of UDRP
providers (WIPO and NAF)….” Therefore, the draft needs to be
corrected. In addition, without taking a positive or negative position as
regards the BC draft, but in order to better understand the issue, what do we
answer to those who may ask, but what about the approval of the Chinese Centre or
of the Czech Centre?
2)
In page http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/#proceedings, under “Approval Process for Dispute Resolution Service
Providers” it is stated that:
“ICANN is not currently soliciting
additional dispute resolution service providers; however, interested parties
may contact ICANN on an individual basis to express their interest. The
procedures used for approving providers in the past are provided for reference
below.”
Does anybody know
if there is such a “decision” and what it says? If there is such a ‘decision”
(and a reasoning), perhaps the BC could use in the arguing.
We understand
that time is limited, but we would appreciate if anyone can provide clarifications
on the above, in order to understand the issue and to shape a view.
Best regards,
Konstantin
Chairman ETNO IGV-WG
OTE
Directorate General for Regulatory Affairs