I am in agreement with Sarah and Mike. and, yes, Mike, thanks for that reminder! I still have the transcripts from part of that session! 
I recall one graduate student who told us that IPR shouldn't exist on the Internet! 



From: michael@palage.com
To: sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com; philip.sheppard@aim.be; pcorwin@butera-andrews.com; bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft BC Position on Establishing Standard Contract for UDRP Providers
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:28:32 -0400

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