Hi everyone, I appreciate the chance to answer some of your questions. I also appreciate that time is near for our call, but I would like to share the following: George asked about WIPO’s “Select UDRP-related Court Cases” page, and why WIPO had not included certain cases on that page, and then why it was updated it as it was. After discussing this internally, and based inter alia on assessment of a number of reasoned discussions made on this very list as to the various range of factors involved in court‑sanctioned settled cases, it seemed clear that certain types of cases may or may not have probative value that speaks to the merits of the UDRP case. Illustrative of the fact that this assessment was applied in a neutral manner in terms of not including certain cases on this page, as you can see, the “lawsociety” case was also removed. As to why it was initially put up, I could not say; as you can see, nearly all of the content on that page predates my current role. I also understand from my Francophone colleagues that the Moobitalk case involves a complex trademark-jurisdictional question decided on distinct grounds from the UDRP case. Moreover, while we are facing record volumes of cases in recent years, with respect, on the few occasions where a third party brings a case to our attention, rather than simply post it on WIPO’s public webpage automatically, we prefer to take the necessary time to make a reasoned assessment before potentially doing so. Michael asked about my suggestions on a question in the Providers subteam survey. As has already been clarified on the email list by staff, the reason I reached out to staff is that I had put a suggestion on the list (on 26-Apr) with a suggestion to use more neutral language (i.e., that found in the URS Rules regarding impartiality requirements). Although there was subsequent discussion on the list about this, I was not aware that a resolution had been reached. However, on a call on 4-May, Kathy represented that the relevant subteam questions were finalized. I wrote to staff merely to see if they would be able to clarify whether this was the case; in their reply to me, they shared the subteam-agreed wording on that particular question. Since I understood that the subteam was seeking to close this work off by COB that Friday I sought to provide some very targeted feedback along the same lies of my original email of 26-Apr, and as I made clear to staff I would have been happy to raise the very same point in the full WG – I merely thought it would be more efficient to share my thoughts in advance with the subteam, via staff in this case. Anyone who know or has worked with me can attest that I try when possible to approach such matters with an efficient and solution-oriented mindset. Since I understood that these questions in any event would need to be cleared by the full WG, I merely thought this approach (occasioned if you recall by my asking for a procedural clarification) fit that mold. Martin asked about my role in WIPO, the GAC, and my Statement of Interest stating that I am representing my employer. At WIPO, I am responsible for day-to-day management and oversight of domain name operations (this includes a range of tasks such as HR, administration, finance, and IT), and also related IP and DNS policy activities (e.g., this working group). If you will allow me a brief word about WIPO (whose mission relates to “the development of a balanced and effective international intellectual property (IP) system that enables innovation and creativity for the benefit of all”), by definition, we, the staff here, are the “secretariat” to WIPO’s Member States. What this means is that we act in a neutral manner without taking substantive views. A recent example of this is my participation at our Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT)<http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=46435> where issues such as trademarks and GIs on the Internet were discussed. While I might have personal views on international legal norms in these areas, our role is to provide a platform for Member State discussions – very much like the co-chair role envisaged for this particular ICANN working group. As for the GAC, WIPO, as a Member State-constituted organization, is an official observer. Frankly, we are not involved in the majority of GAC discussions, but seek where relevant to share our experience e.g., with administering dispute resolution systems, or where there are relevant Member State decisions relating to IP norms – a good example is that during discussions on the TMCH “proof of use” requirement, we shared with GAC colleagues a WIPO SCT survey that had been conducted on the registration office practices of Member States. As to any WG review of UDRP providers, at the recent Puerto Rico meeting, Mr. Kirikos raised some questions for the NAF, and while WIPO has written to ICANN about provider accreditation choices over the years, I did not intervene in that particular discussion; had I done so, I would have made it clear whether I was doing so in a non-chair capacity (assuming for argument’s sake that I would be in that role, to complete this example). It is of course true the WIPO is the leading UDRP provider, and I am honored to contribute to its work in this respect; WIPO (operating on a not-for-profit basis) believes that the UDRP is a positive international contribution for all DNS stakeholders, and WIPO’s interest is in its healthy functioning as a system that saves parties the time and expense of going to court, acts as a safe harbor by keeping registration authorities out of court/disputes, provides predictability in a domain name aftermarket, and protects consumers. Thanks for the opportunity to provide you all with these answers. Brian Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 | E brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int> | www.wipo.int<http://www.wipo.int/> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.