While it's true that there are currenly four approved UDRP providers, the vast majority of cases are filed with WIPO and NAF; CAC was just accredirted about a year or so ago.. I just did a quick survey and these are current filing #s (all totals are 2010 to date, except for NAF which is total for 2009): WIPO-2069 NAF-1759 Asain DNDRC-59 CAC-11 So I will change the draft to delete the duopoly term and instead note that the vast majority (approximately 98%) of UDRPs are handled by WIPO and NAF. As regards written decisions, I do not recall seeing one when CAC was approved -- ICANN simply announced that their application had been approved. Philip S. Corwin Partner Butera & Andrews 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202-347-6875 (office) 202-347-6876 (fax) 202-255-6172 (cell) "Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] on behalf of Michael D. Palage [michael@palage.com] Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 8:44 AM To: 'Kladouras Konstantinos'; 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft #3 of UDRP Provider Standard Mechanisms Position Paper Kladouras, With regard to Point 1 – you raise a fair point. The use of the word duopoly has specific legal significance regarding market power and the ability to control price. I believe a more accurate statement may be along the lines of WIPO and NAF receive the vast majority (insert %) of the annual UDRP filings from amongst the four providers. I think our credibility as a stakeholder group is tied to the accuracy of your statements. When we make allegations that have legal significance which we cannot substantiate that is not a good thing in my opinion. With regard to Point #2. I agree with the accuracy of the statement Phil has drafted. The problem is I do not believe there is a written decision by ICANN on this subject matter. However, if you ask the General Counsel or other ICANN senior staff this is the response he is likely to give. Hopefully this helps. Best regards, Michael From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kladouras Konstantinos Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 8:06 AM To: bc - GNSO list Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft #3 of UDRP Provider Standard Mechanisms Position Paper 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 Konstantin KLADOURAS Chairman ETNO IGV-WG OTE S.A. Directorate General for Regulatory Affairs 99 Kifissias Ave., GR-151 24 Maroussi GREECE