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>>
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 <BLOCKED::#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>>
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 <BLOCKED::#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>>
David is very familiar with the underlying immunity issues and believes that the DRP approach is a way for the IGOs to avoid the treaty route. Here are his words, "This conflict can be reconciled by the traditional means of treaties. I understand that the impetus for this proposal is to do an end run around the treaty process." 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: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:55 PM 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 <BLOCKED::#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>>
I share David's concerns about this proposal. (Without going into the specific concerns on the proposal) we should not circumvent the treaty making process and international legal institutions - which is the correct forum to take such a proposal to. ICANN has no authority to create special rights for IGOs vis-a-vis other legal rights to use domain names. Robin Gomes, Chuck wrote:
David is very familiar with the underlying immunity issues and believes that the DRP approach is a way for the IGOs to avoid the treaty route. Here are his words, "This conflict can be reconciled by the traditional means of treaties. I understand that the impetus for this proposal is to do an end run around the treaty process."
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:* Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:55 PM *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 <BLOCKED::#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>>
Personally, I also do not support substantively expanding the UDRP in any way for NGOs, they should have to meet the same 3-factor test to prevail as would any other complaining party. But I could support a special arbitration procedure for NGO's to dispute an adverse UDRP decision, and a carveout from the current rules so they would not have to submit to jurisdiction of a foreign court for such an appeal, as they would today by filing a UDRP complaint. I had always understood that was the NGO's primary concern with proceeding under the UDRP. I think such an arbitration process could be run by the existing UDRP providers, and could be as simple as a second review by a different panelist (even at a different provider), at the NGO's cost. This essentially would give them two chances at ADR, rather than having to appeal to a court. Mike Rodenbaugh -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:55 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: David W. Maher Subject: Re: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP I share David's concerns about this proposal. (Without going into the specific concerns on the proposal) we should not circumvent the treaty making process and international legal institutions - which is the correct forum to take such a proposal to. ICANN has no authority to create special rights for IGOs vis-a-vis other legal rights to use domain names. Robin Gomes, Chuck wrote:
David is very familiar with the underlying immunity issues and believes that the DRP approach is a way for the IGOs to avoid the treaty route. Here are his words, "This conflict can be reconciled by the traditional means of treaties. I understand that the impetus for this proposal is to do an end run around the treaty process."
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:* Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:55 PM *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 <BLOCKED::#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>>
Mike, In your proposal would the appeal arbitration be binding? 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."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 7:01 PM To: robin@ipjustice.org; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: Maher, David Subject: RE: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP
Personally, I also do not support substantively expanding the UDRP in any way for NGOs, they should have to meet the same 3-factor test to prevail as would any other complaining party.
But I could support a special arbitration procedure for NGO's to dispute an adverse UDRP decision, and a carveout from the current rules so they would not have to submit to jurisdiction of a foreign court for such an appeal, as they would today by filing a UDRP complaint. I had always understood that was the NGO's primary concern with proceeding under the UDRP. I think such an arbitration process could be run by the existing UDRP providers, and could be as simple as a second review by a different panelist (even at a different provider), at the NGO's cost. This essentially would give them two chances at ADR, rather than having to appeal to a court.
Mike Rodenbaugh
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:55 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: David W. Maher Subject: Re: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP
I share David's concerns about this proposal. (Without going into the specific concerns on the proposal) we should not circumvent the treaty making process and international legal institutions - which is the correct forum to take such a proposal to.
ICANN has no authority to create special rights for IGOs vis-a-vis other legal rights to use domain names.
Robin
Gomes, Chuck wrote:
David is very familiar with the underlying immunity issues and believes that the DRP approach is a way for the IGOs to avoid the treaty route. Here are his words, "This conflict can be reconciled by the traditional means of treaties. I understand that the impetus for this proposal is to do an end run around the treaty process."
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:* Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:55 PM *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 <BLOCKED::#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>>
Good question Chuck, thanks. I think it ought to be binding on the NGO, after putting the registrant through two ADRs and losing both, since they are concerned about submitting to a court's jurisdiction by appealing in these matters anyway, and thus this 2d procedure would be made available to them. But I think registrants should still have ability to go to a court if they choose. That would presume that they think that court could and would assert jurisdiction over the NGO. I think that would be extremely rare, yet ICANN shouldn't try to prevent it at least for existing domain registrants since they have the expectation of that recourse. Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:20 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; robin@ipjustice.org; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: Maher, David Subject: RE: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP Mike, In your proposal would the appeal arbitration be binding? 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."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 7:01 PM To: robin@ipjustice.org; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: Maher, David Subject: RE: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP
Personally, I also do not support substantively expanding the UDRP in any way for NGOs, they should have to meet the same 3-factor test to prevail as would any other complaining party.
But I could support a special arbitration procedure for NGO's to dispute an adverse UDRP decision, and a carveout from the current rules so they would not have to submit to jurisdiction of a foreign court for such an appeal, as they would today by filing a UDRP complaint. I had always understood that was the NGO's primary concern with proceeding under the UDRP. I think such an arbitration process could be run by the existing UDRP providers, and could be as simple as a second review by a different panelist (even at a different provider), at the NGO's cost. This essentially would give them two chances at ADR, rather than having to appeal to a court.
Mike Rodenbaugh
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:55 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: David W. Maher Subject: Re: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP
I share David's concerns about this proposal. (Without going into the specific concerns on the proposal) we should not circumvent the treaty making process and international legal institutions - which is the correct forum to take such a proposal to.
ICANN has no authority to create special rights for IGOs vis-a-vis other legal rights to use domain names.
Robin
Gomes, Chuck wrote:
David is very familiar with the underlying immunity issues and believes that the DRP approach is a way for the IGOs to avoid the treaty route. Here are his words, "This conflict can be reconciled by the traditional means of treaties. I understand that the impetus for this proposal is to do an end run around the treaty process."
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:* Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:55 PM *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 <BLOCKED::#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>>
Thanks for the quick response Mike. I do want to point out that you have extended the topic from IGOs to NGOs. Did you you mean to do that? 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."
-----Original Message----- From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mxrodenbaugh@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 8:25 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; robin@ipjustice.org; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: Maher, David Subject: RE: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP
Good question Chuck, thanks. I think it ought to be binding on the NGO, after putting the registrant through two ADRs and losing both, since they are concerned about submitting to a court's jurisdiction by appealing in these matters anyway, and thus this 2d procedure would be made available to them. But I think registrants should still have ability to go to a court if they choose. That would presume that they think that court could and would assert jurisdiction over the NGO. I think that would be extremely rare, yet ICANN shouldn't try to prevent it at least for existing domain registrants since they have the expectation of that recourse.
Mike
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:20 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; robin@ipjustice.org; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: Maher, David Subject: RE: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP
Mike,
In your proposal would the appeal arbitration be binding?
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."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 7:01 PM To: robin@ipjustice.org; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: Maher, David Subject: RE: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP
Personally, I also do not support substantively expanding the UDRP in any way for NGOs, they should have to meet the same 3-factor test to prevail as would any other complaining party.
But I could support a special arbitration procedure for NGO's to dispute an adverse UDRP decision, and a carveout from the current rules so they would not have to submit to jurisdiction of a foreign court for such an appeal, as they would today by filing a UDRP complaint. I had always understood that was the NGO's primary concern with proceeding under the UDRP. I think such an arbitration process could be run by the existing UDRP providers, and could be as simple as a second review by a different panelist (even at a different provider), at the NGO's cost. This essentially would give them two chances at ADR, rather than having to appeal to a court.
Mike Rodenbaugh
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:55 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: David W. Maher Subject: Re: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP
I share David's concerns about this proposal. (Without going into the specific concerns on the proposal) we should not circumvent the treaty making process and international legal institutions - which is the correct forum to take such a proposal to.
ICANN has no authority to create special rights for IGOs vis-a-vis other legal rights to use domain names.
Robin
Gomes, Chuck wrote:
David is very familiar with the underlying immunity issues and believes that the DRP approach is a way for the IGOs to avoid the treaty route. Here are his words, "This conflict can be reconciled by the traditional means of treaties. I understand that the impetus for this proposal is to do an end run around the treaty process."
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:* Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:55 PM *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 <BLOCKED::#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>>
No, that is my typo mistake, sorry. Mike Rodenbaugh Rodenbaugh LLC -----Original Message----- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 09:25:35 To:"Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxrodenbaugh@yahoo.com>, <robin@ipjustice.org>, <council@gnso.icann.org> Cc:"Maher, David" <dmaher@pir.org> Subject: RE: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP Thanks for the quick response Mike. I do want to point out that you have extended the topic from IGOs to NGOs. Did you you mean to do that? 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."
-----Original Message----- From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mxrodenbaugh@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 8:25 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; robin@ipjustice.org; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: Maher, David Subject: RE: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP
Good question Chuck, thanks. I think it ought to be binding on the NGO, after putting the registrant through two ADRs and losing both, since they are concerned about submitting to a court's jurisdiction by appealing in these matters anyway, and thus this 2d procedure would be made available to them. But I think registrants should still have ability to go to a court if they choose. That would presume that they think that court could and would assert jurisdiction over the NGO. I think that would be extremely rare, yet ICANN shouldn't try to prevent it at least for existing domain registrants since they have the expectation of that recourse.
Mike
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:20 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; robin@ipjustice.org; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: Maher, David Subject: RE: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP
Mike,
In your proposal would the appeal arbitration be binding?
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."
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 7:01 PM To: robin@ipjustice.org; council@gnso.icann.org Cc: Maher, David Subject: RE: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP
Personally, I also do not support substantively expanding the UDRP in any way for NGOs, they should have to meet the same 3-factor test to prevail as would any other complaining party.
But I could support a special arbitration procedure for NGO's to dispute an adverse UDRP decision, and a carveout from the current rules so they would not have to submit to jurisdiction of a foreign court for such an appeal, as they would today by filing a UDRP complaint. I had always understood that was the NGO's primary concern with proceeding under the UDRP. I think such an arbitration process could be run by the existing UDRP providers, and could be as simple as a second review by a different panelist (even at a different provider), at the NGO's cost. This essentially would give them two chances at ADR, rather than having to appeal to a court.
Mike Rodenbaugh
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:55 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: David W. Maher Subject: Re: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP
I share David's concerns about this proposal. (Without going into the specific concerns on the proposal) we should not circumvent the treaty making process and international legal institutions - which is the correct forum to take such a proposal to.
ICANN has no authority to create special rights for IGOs vis-a-vis other legal rights to use domain names.
Robin
Gomes, Chuck wrote:
David is very familiar with the underlying immunity issues and believes that the DRP approach is a way for the IGOs to avoid the treaty route. Here are his words, "This conflict can be reconciled by the traditional means of treaties. I understand that the impetus for this proposal is to do an end run around the treaty process."
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:* Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:55 PM *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 <BLOCKED::#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>>
Chuck and all, I, for one, am a bit intrigued about the inner meaning of what you call the "treaty route". Would that imply a) all IGOs do like the Red Cross and nail the name protection in their respective treaties or b) some overarching treaty for all IGOs clarifying name protection for them all, a kind of "Paris Convention +" or c) something else? Grateful for some clarification on this. I trust I'm not the only one that's puzzled (and if I am, well - apologies for not getting it..) Best regards Olof _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: den 29 november 2007 23:18 To: Rosette, Kristina; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: RE: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP David is very familiar with the underlying immunity issues and believes that the DRP approach is a way for the IGOs to avoid the treaty route. Here are his words, "This conflict can be reconciled by the traditional means of treaties. I understand that the impetus for this proposal is to do an end run around the treaty process." 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: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@cov.com] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:55 PM 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 <BLOCKED::#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>>
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 <BLOCKED::#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>>
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 <BLOCKED::#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>>
participants (5)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Olof Nordling -
Robin Gross -
Rosette, Kristina