All, After much consideration a light has suddenly appeared. We need do nothing in this case at all. The answers exist in the current Policy. Here is a summary of my proposal. I ask that it be discussed at the next call and if necessary we retain counsel to determine if it is legally sound. The current UDRP requires that complainants waive any claim as against the ADR provider. There is no similar provision for respondents. The result is that Complainants waive claims against that ADR provider. Respondents do not. Complainants: (xiii) Conclude with the following statement followed by the signature (in any electronic format) of the Complainant or its authorized representative: "Complainant agrees that its claims and remedies concerning the registration of the domain name, the dispute, or the dispute's resolution shall be solely against the domain-name holder and waives all such claims and remedies against (a) the dispute-resolution provider and panelists, except in the case of deliberate wrongdoing, (b) the registrar, (c) the registry administrator, and (d) the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, as well as their directors, officers, employees, and agents." "Complainant certifies that the information contained in this Complaint is to the best of Complainant's knowledge complete and accurate, that this Complaint is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, and that the assertions in this Complaint are warranted under these Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument." Respondents: (viii) Conclude with the following statement followed by the signature (in any electronic format) of the Respondent or its authorized representative: "Respondent certifies that the information contained in this Response is to the best of Respondent's knowledge complete and accurate, that this Response is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, and that the assertions in this Response are warranted under these Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument." The current UDRP provides for a Mutual Jurisdiction (MJ) designation. All complainants MUST designate an MJ. An MJ is (generally): Location of registrar per ICANN Location of registrant as stated in the WHOIS There is some uncertainty as to whether the Mutual Jurisdiction selection constitutes a waiver of Sovereign Immunity. An order of an ADR provider must be complied with unless a losing respondent commences a legal action in the MJ within a 10-business-day period. The issue with NGOs is that they do not wish to subject themselves to potential liability of national courts - Sovereign Immunity. Legally, there are 3 potentially interested parties: (1) Respondent, (2) Complainant (NGO), and (3) ADR Provider. A court may generally only issue orders directing an interested party to do (or refrain from doing) something. This might be, ³pay the claimant damages². It might be ³refrain from doing XXX². Very few courts will order a person to DO something other than pay damages. Courts are most likely to order an interested party to NOT DO something. The reason for this is that the standard for ordering a person to do something is higher than the standard to actual NOT do something. This bears relation to unique legal issues like specific performance (an order that a party must do something). Such remedies are rare in the US although more normal in Europe. What I propose is that we essentially ignore the NGOs in this issue and instead focus on the other parties having an interest in this issue and thus subject to the court¹s order the ADR provider. The current UDRP obligates the complainant to waive claims against the ADR provider to protect the ADR provider from damages resulting from its decisions. There is no similar waiver by the Respondent. The common practice amongst attorneys is to name any person or entity that potentially has a relationship to the potential remedy. This is done so that the court can issue an order that has the actual force of law. The court can only order people to do something if they have appeared before the court or had an opportunity to do so. In the context of a typical UDRP, there are 4 parties that have potential control over the remedy or an interest: 1. Registrant 2. Complainant 3. Registrar 4. ADR Provider Typically, in post-UDRP an attorney would name as defendants only the complainant and the registrar. The reason for this is that in most post-UDRP decisions the ADR is seen as a neutral party. However, in US jurisdiction, court orders are often challenged by naming the court as a defendant. The purpose of this practice is to ensure that any appeals court decision is properly directed at the lower court ordering it to do (or not do) something. The most common remedy sought is to invalidate a prior order of the lower court. Thus, the lower court is often named as a real party in interest so that any decision by the appeals court can name the lower court ordering it to invalidate or enforce (or modify) its prior decision. My proposal recognizes that the ADR provider is a necessary party to any post-UDRP litigation so that the court can actually order the appropriate remedy. As a result, the participation of the NGO in the litigation should have no legal bearing on whether or not the underlying UDRP decision is or is not enforced. Any recognition of the NGO¹s sovereign immunity should only impact whether or not the NGO is liable in any manner to the respondent (plaintiff). Thus, a plaintiff who names the ADR provider and Registrar should be able to obtain a court order granting relief (e.g. a confirmation that the domain name should not be transferred) without regard to whether the NGO did nor did not participate in the litigation. In other words, any claim by the NGO concerning Sovereign Immunity would have no impact on whether the domain were transferred. Indeed its only impact would be to prevent any order that the NGO do (e.g. pay damages) or refrain from doing (stop issuing demands) anything. The point is that WE DO NOT NEED TO DO ANYTHING to address the concerns of the NGOs as presented to the Working Group. Sorry it took me so long to remember basic legal theory. Anyone having an issue with the above analysis PLEASE feel free to poke holes all over it. Regards Paul