Fellow BC Members:

In October 2010 the BC adopted a position of non-support the accreditation of the Arab Center for Domain name Dispute Resolution or any other new gTLD provider “until ICANN implements a standard mechanism

for establishing uniform rules and procedures and flexible means of delineating and enforcing arbitration provider responsibilities.” I was the rapporteur for the position statement but it received consensus support from the entire BC, with many trademark owners expressing concern about a diminishment of UDRP standards in the absence of some standard and enforceable mechanism to assure uniform application of that policy.

The accreditation of the ACDR is on the ICANN Board’s Consent calendar for its meeting of Thursday, February 28^th. I am hereby requesting that the BC communicate this position statement to the Board in advance of its discussion of that matter, as it has done in the past on other issues for which the BC has a relevant established position.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Best, Philip

http://forum.icann.org/lists/acdr-proposal/msg00004.html

Business Constituency (BC) Comment on ICANN Proposal

to Recognize New Domain Name Dispute Provider

*Background*

There is a pending request for comment regarding the application of the Arab

Center for Domain Name Dispute Resolution (ACDR) to become a certified

Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure (UDRP) arbitration provider.

*Summary*

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 mechanism

for establishing uniform rules and procedures and flexible means of

delineating and enforcing arbitration provider responsibilities.

*Explanation*

The BC notes that the voluntary registration or renewal of a gTLD domain

must be undertaken via an ICANN-accredited registrar. All registrars are

subject to a uniform contractual agreement with ICANN, the Registrar

Accreditation Agreement (RAA). ICANN recently strengthened the RAA with

additional amendments and the addition of flexible enforcement options, and

a Final Report proposing additional RAA amendments has just been delivered

to the GNSO for its consideration.

In stark contrast, the involuntary termination or transfer of a domain can

be ordered under the authority of a UDRP provider that has been accredited

by ICANN but which is not bound by any constraints on or requirements

pertaining to the exercise of that delegated authority. This has led to

increasing concerns about the lack of adequate procedural and substantive

consistency in the UDRP process. Such concerns are likely to grow if

additional providers are accredited in the absence of the uniform framework

of a standard mechanism.

The BC strongly advocates that ICANN must first implement a standard

mechanism with any and all UDRP arbitration providers that defines and

constrains their authority and powers, and establishes regular and

standardized review by ICANN with flexible and effective means of

enforcement. The ultimate sanction of cancelling accreditation is an extreme

sanction that ICANN has demonstrated a reluctance to initiate in other

contexts.

ICANN appears to be transitioning from an environment in which the vast

majority of UDRP cases (approximately 98%) were handled by two arbitration

providers (WIPO and NAF) and in which significant gTLDs were based in a

limited number of national jurisdictions to one in which the majority of

gTLDs and UDRP providers may well be headquartered in a widely distributed

group of jurisdictions.

In the future, business interests may well be investing substantial amounts

in these new gTLDs, for both defensive, new branding, and other purposes.

In this type of environment it is even more important that all UDRP

providers be subject to uniform and enforceable responsibilities, as that is

the only means of furthering the goal that UDRP decisions are consistent

within and among UDRP providers, and that the UDRP remains an expedited and

lower cost remediation for addressing cybersquatting.

The BC notes that the issue of whether UDRP providers should be under a

standard mechanism with ICANN is almost entirely separable from the question

of whether the UDRP evaluation standards for determining the existence of

cybersquatting should be reformed. There is no need to debate the

substantive elements of the UDRP in order to address the fundamental issue

of whether UDRP providers should be under a standard mechanism.

***

The rapporteur for these comments was Phil Corwin.

ICANN Business Constituency

http://www.bizconst.org

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:37 PM
To: bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] ICANN Board Considering New UDRP Provider
Importance: High

FYI, on the consent calendar for the 2/28 ICANN Board Meeting https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-28feb13-en.htm ---

Arab Center for Dispute Resolution's Proposal to Serve as UDRP Provider

You may recall that the BC is on record as stating several years back (don’t have time right now to find document) that ICANN should not accredit any new UDRP providers until it developed a standard contract for all providers. My recollection is that this provider was one of the two being considered at that time and is based in Amman, Jordan.

In a related matter, while ICANN announced yesterday that NAF would be a URS provider, it did not state whether NAF would be placed under contract per the STI recommendation.