I believe Griffin is correct.  As I recall, there was significant discussion around what constituted “predominant language” so the group agreed to rely on “registration agreement language”.

Many thanks, Griffin. That may indeed be the case and I do not specifically recollect. Wonder if anyone has any other perspectives or recollections

Zak

Hi Zak and all,

My understanding was that Rec 4 as drafted correctly captures the intent to supplant the “predominant language” translation requirement with the “registration agreement language” translation requirement, consistent with the registration agreement language as default controlling language for proceedings rule under Rec 3. 

Best,

Griffin

Dear fellow WG members, I note that URS Final Recommendation #3 was incorporated into the draft Report as per our recent deliberations;

                URS Final Recommendation #3

The Working Group recommends that the URS Rules be amended to incorporate in full Rule #11 of the UDRP Rules regarding “Language of Proceedings”

I also note that URS Final Recommendation #4 appears to now refer to having the URS Notice of Complaint be in the language of the Registration Agreement as opposed to the predominant language of the registrant:

URS Final Recommendation #4

The Working Group recommends that the URS Rule 4(b) and URS Procedure para 4.2 be amended to require the Provider to transmit the Notice of Complaint to the Respondent in English and translate it into the language of the Registration Agreement.

On one hand this can be viewed as consistent with Recommendation #3 (above), but on the other hand I am uncertain whether WG’s resolution was to cease translating the actual Notice into the predominant language, or to continue to do so but have the subsequent proceeding be in the language of the registrant agreement.

Maybe this is something worth discussing on our next call if there is sufficient interest amongst the WG members and time to do so.

Zak Muscovitch

Hi All,