Dear Members of the ICANN Board,

Further to our comments on the EPDP Initial Report, I write to raise for your attention an aspect of our previously-submitted comments that may have been overlooked by the EPDP team in producing its Final Report.

Our comments submitted December 21, 2018 (www.wipo.int/amc/en/docs/icann21122018.pdf) stated that: “We submit that in lieu of or in addition to a representative of the RPM WG, a UDRP provider should be included as a representative in any update to the EPDP team to properly assess the potential impact of the EPDP work on UDRP case administration.”

Further to the EPDP Final Report’s suggestion (see Part 4: Updates to Other Consensus Policies) that a representative from the RPM WG provide an update to the EPDP team, we again respectfully suggest that a representative from a UDRP Provider such as WIPO should be part of and/or coordinate any such update.

We raise this given that it is unlikely that a WG member who does not have direct UDRP Provider experience would be in a position to fully understand the implications of the EPDP’s work on the actual day-to-day administration of UDRP proceedings. We feel that such actual UDRP Provider representation would assist ICANN and the EPDP’s efforts.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours sincerely,

Brian