Hi folks, In relation to curative rights for IGOs, and the topic of jurisdiction, note that the PDDRP rules (for disputes against a new gTLD registry) specify: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/pddrp-2014-01-09-en http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/pddrp-rules-15oct13-en.pdf that: "...Complainant will submit, with respect to any challenges to a decision in the administrative proceeding, to the jurisdiction of the courts where the Registry has its principle place of business;" (Section 3(b)(x)) Thus, the waiver of immunity exists in this dispute resolution policy, as it does in the UDRP. I believe this clause exists because ICANN wanted to make sure that no "new law" was being created by the PDDRP, only a complementary procedure to existing law. It reflects the fact that if an IGO initiated a complaint against a registry in a court of law, it would by necessity waive its immunity (i.e. reflecting the fact it was the initiator of the dispute, rather than defending a dispute initiated by someone else). While the PDDRP was not a policy we were tasked to look at in this PDP, I think its example is informative, and reinforces the argument for the maintenance of the status quo --- i.e. we're not tasked to create "new law". Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/