Thanks very much for the redline, Olof. 
 
The IPC had focused only on the DRP, not the Rules.  I can only speak personally, but I would like to see "reverse domain hijacking" retained in the Rules.  An IGO is just as capable as engaging in RDH as any other complainant, and a Panel should be free to make that determination. 
 
I will raise the issue with the IPC membership, and will get back to the list as soon as practicable.
 
Kristina
 
 

From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 6:24 AM
To: Rosette, Kristina; 'Gomes, Chuck'; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP

Dear all,

In an effort to provide some additional clarity, I’ve prepared a redline version, comparing the IPC draft (expanded with the Rules of Procedure from the staff draft) versus the UDRP. Hope it is somewhat helpful.

Best regards

Olof

 

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: den 29 november 2007 22:55
To: Gomes, Chuck; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP

 

Chuck,

 

Given David's participation in the Joint Working Group on 2003, I've assumed he's familiar with the underlying immunity issue that motivates the arbitration proposal.  (For those Councilors who may not have the institutional knowledge of the IGO issue, it's discussed in pages 12-14 of the Issues Report.)  I, for one, would welcome alternative suggestions from David - or anyone for that matter - that take into account the  immunity-driven limitations.

 

K

 

 

 

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:42 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP

To get some discussion going, here's some feedback received from David Maher in the RyC, sent with David's permission.

 

"This proposal still has the fundamental flaw that it requires mandatory ARBITRATION. It is an attempt to make ICANN a global legislative body outside the jurisdiction of national courts. The existing UDRP provides for a mandatory ADMINISTRATIVE proceeding and has the following escape clause (4(k)):

Availability of Court Proceedings. The mandatory administrative proceeding requirements set forth in Paragraph 4 shall not prevent either you or the complainant from submitting the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction for independent resolution before such mandatory administrative proceeding is commenced or after such proceeding is concluded.

If ICANN can do this, it can make law on any other subject. I don't think we, as registries, want to subject ourselves to mandatory arbitration (except as provided in contracts we have signed) on any subject that the GNSO comes up with."

 

Chuck Gomes

 

"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."

 

 

From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 10:15 PM
To: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP

All,

Attached please find the IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP, which was approved by the IPC at its meeting this morning.  Attached also for reference is a redline against the IGO DRP that was contained in the 28 September 2007 staff report.

The IPC believes that its proposed revised IGO DRP remedies the aspects of the original IGO DRP that were previously identified as being of concern. 

The IPC proposed revised IGO DRP does not address - and was not intended to address - the process by which an IGO DRP would become applicable to existing gTLDs.   Once (or if) it does become applicable to existing gTLDs, the proposed changes reflect a mechanism that is believed to treat existing gTLD registrants fairly.

Kristina

 

<<11282007 IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP.DOC>> <<Redline IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP against Original.DOC>>