March 2026 - Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt

ICANN IGO Curative Rights IRT: IGO written rationale
by Peter Eakin March 17, 2026

March 17, 2026

Dear IRT, I hope you are all recovering after a productive ICANN85, especially if you attended in-person. As requested during our ICANN85 call, Beril Arı from the OECD has kindly provided a detailed explanation of the IGO perspective on the GNSO Council Resolution and most recent round of draft UDRP updates. Please see below. Suggestions on proposed changes to the drafts have also been provided (attached). Please take the time to read and share any thoughts. Staff will be in touch soon regarding next steps. Best, Peter --------------------------------------------- Dear Peter, Thank you once again for taking the time to consider our concerns and ensuring that they are duly heard. As I tried to explain during the call, OECD thinks that the purpose of the IRT is to implement the recommendations adopted by the EPDP, which relate specifically to the possibility of challenging a UDRP/URS decision. I am including below excerpts from the “IRT Discussion Paper on Recommendations 2 - 5 of the Final Report of the Expedited Policy Development Process on Specific Curative Rights Protections for International Governmental Organizations (IGOs)” dated 6 June 2025, which confirm this understanding clearly and without ambiguity. This is fully aligned with the final EPDP report. “Recommendation 2 includes updates to the UDRP and URS rules to explicitly exempt IGO Complainants (as defined in Recommendation 1) from the current UDRP and URS rules that require complainants to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts in at least one specified Mutual Jurisdiction with respect to any challenges to a decision in the administrative proceeding canceling or transferring the domain name. Recommendations 3-4 recommend updates to the UDRP and URS rules to provide a path (binding arbitration) for a registrant to challenge a UDRP or URS decision.” – p.1 of the IRT Discussion paper (emphasis added) “The EPDP team recommended the following outcomes: (…) Recommendations 3 & 4: The establishment of a new arbitral process to facilitate arbitral review of UDRP and URS decisions involving IGO Complainants.” – p.2 of the IRT Discussion paper (emphasis added) “The EPDP team was motivated by a desire to ensure that their recommendations balanced the rights and interests of IGOs and registrants, in particular the need to preserve the legal right to IGO immunity as well as a registrant's right to contest UDRP/URS decisions in court. Accordingly, the new arbitration step was conceived as a challenge path that a registrant may elect to pursue at the outset of a challenge, or after an IGO has notified of its decision to invoke legal immunity.” – p.3 of the IRT Discussion paper (emphasis added) “2) Recommendations 3 & 4: Arbitral Review following a UDRP Proceeding / Arbitral Review following a URS Proceeding” – title on p.9 of the IRT Discussion paper (emphasis added) “The EPDP team recommends that the following provisions be added to the UDRP to accommodate the possibility of binding arbitration to review an initial panel decision issued under the UDRP” – This is how the recommendation 3 text starts. Please see p.9 of the IRT Discussion paper (emphasis added) “Recommendations 3 & 4 set out how arbitration will function when a registrant challenges a UDRP or URS decision in favor of an IGO Complainant.” – p.11 of the IRT Discussion paper (emphasis added) In light of the above, I believe it is clear that the new arbitral process to be addressed in the UDRP/URS rules concerns challenges to UDRP or URS decisions. That said, as previously mentioned, I do agree with the principle that introducing this new arbitral mechanism for challenging the outcome of a UDRP/URS decision does not limit either party’s ability to initiate legal proceedings if such alternative mechanisms are already available to them. Section 5 of the UDRP Policy already confirms this (please see below), and I am happy to emphasize that again in the Rules to avoid any ambiguity on this matter: 5. All Other Disputes and Litigation. All other disputes between you and any party other than us regarding your domain name registration that are not brought pursuant to the mandatory administrative proceeding provisions of Paragraph 4 [protect.checkpoint.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r02/___https:/…> shall be resolved between you and such other party through any court, arbitration or other proceeding that may be available. Additionally, Section 8 – Transfers During a Dispute of the UDRP Policy refers to pending court proceedings or arbitration initiated in relation to the domain name, which further confirms that such actions have always been possible and that their consequences are already addressed. Given the clearly stated intention of EPDP to establish an arbitral process in UDRP/URS Rules to challenge the outcome of UDRP/URS decisions, which the IRT should implement; and considering that the existing Policy already contemplates the possibility of court or arbitral proceedings, we do not see a basis for regulating the details of how arbitration may be initiated in cases unrelated to challenges of UDRP/URS decisions. Such arbitration pursued in parallel to or instead of a UDRP/URS proceeding is outside ICANN’s scope, and, in principle, is available to both parties if they agree to use it. Defining it in the Rules in a manner that makes it available only to respondents gives the impression that the Rules are establishing a new mechanism for a process that lies beyond their remit. In light of the above, OECD thinks that the GNSO Council’s resolution should be understood in a way that is consistent with the EPDP’s Recommendations: the establishment of a new arbitral mechanism is to provide a structured path for challenging UDRP/URS decisions, not to restrict any party’s existing ability to pursue alternative dispute resolution mechanisms outside that context. The resolution simply reaffirms that respondents may choose to engage in alternative forms of dispute resolution at any point after a UDRP or URS proceeding has begun—an option that already exists under the current UDRP framework and remains unchanged by EPDP Recommendations 2–5. Accordingly, we are comfortable with emphasizing this principle; however, we do not believe that the UDRP/URS Policies or Rules are the appropriate place to detail how such alternative dispute resolution processes may be handled or initiated by either party. I am sharing some suggestions on the Rules and the Policy in that regard, for your consideration. Our proposed changes are highlighted in blue to facilitate the reading. Thank you again so much for all your efforts. And I remain available for any further clarification. Best, Beril -----------------------------------------------------

1 0

ICANN: IGO Curative Rights IRT: IGO Feedback on UDRP V5.0
by Peter Eakin March 4, 2026

March 4, 2026

Dear IRT, With many thanks to Beril, Mia and Brian for working so quickly to get this to us before ICANN85, please see IGO feedback on the UDRP drafts shared on our last call. We will discuss this during our meeting on Saturday, but keen to hear the IRT’s thoughts on list in the meantime. Best, Peter IGO FEEDBACK ON UDRP DRAFT UPDATES V5.0: “In relation to the recent changes, we have some concerns about the broadened scope. While we agree with the principle that neither the purpose of the EPDP nor of the IRT is to restrict the parties’ ability to initiate legal proceedings against one another, whether before a court or through arbitration, prior to/during an ongoing UDRP proceeding, ICANN’s rules should not address any details on such parallel legal proceedings. We are mindful that the sole purpose of the EPDP and this IRT is to introduce an arbitral proceeding available to the parties for the purpose of challenging a UDRP/URS decision in cases involving IGO Complainants, who are no longer required to submit themselves to the Mutual Jurisdiction, which was the main problem. We are happy to clarify explicitly in the Rules and the Policy that this mechanism does not affect or limit either party’s right to seek legal recourse before the courts or through arbitration concerning the domain name. However, we should not go into details of such parallel processes that are not linked to the administrative proceeding. It is too short notice to provide detailed comments on the drafting of the Rules and the Policy for us, but here are the main points that we would like to raise in light of the above concern: For the Rules: * Definition of Arbitral Proceeding – We suggest to revert back to the original version to only say “challenge a determination issued in an administrative proceeding under the Policy that was initiated by an IGO Complainant” * Under 4(c) – In relation to the recent addition of “the Respondent may elect to submit the dispute for resolution via binding arbitration by initiating an Arbitral Proceeding or,” we propose to delete it because this is covered under sub-point 3 of the same provision. * Re. Article 20, in light of the above, it should be limited solely to the arbitration mechanism for challenging a UDRP decision. All references to arbitration that may be initiated while a UDRP proceeding is ongoing should therefore be removed from its scope. To reiterate, we do not object to the principle that both parties retain the right to initiate court proceedings or arbitration relating to the domain name before or during a pending UDRP proceeding, which was already the case. However, the purpose of the EPDP and the IRT is not to establish rules governing those parallel processes; the purpose is to introduce arbitration for challenging a UDRP/URS decision (without affecting the mechanisms that have already been available). Including broader language (i.e. references to 'resolv[ing] the claims raised' instead of referring to the outcome/decision of the administrative proceeding) risks creating the impression that an additional right is being granted to the Respondent beyond what already exists. * To address the principle that the parties’ ability to initiate legal proceedings against one another, whether before a court or through arbitration, prior to/while a UDRP proceeding is pending is not impaired, we propose to change article 18 Effect of Court Proceedings to Effect of Legal Proceedings and modify the sub-paragraph (a) as follows (changes in red): In the event of any legal proceedings initiated prior to or during an administrative proceeding in respect of a domain-name dispute that is the subject of the complaint, either before a court or via arbitration, the Panel shall have the discretion to decide whether to suspend or terminate the administrative proceeding, or to proceed to a decision. For the Policy: * We propose to align paragraph 10 of the Policy with the Rules with respect to the definition pf the Arbitral Proceeding. We propose to revert back to the original version of the first sentence so that it reads as follows: “"You may elect to initiate a binding arbitral proceeding before an Arbitral Panel (an “Arbitral Proceeding”) to challenge the outcome of an administrative proceeding under this Policy initiated by an IGO Complainant”. * With respect to sub-paragraph (g), we couldn’t understand why there is a difference timeline for the implementation of arbitral decision for IGOs and the Respondent. * With respect to 4k(ii), in line with the above explanations, we can introduce the following change in red: “In proceedings brought by an IGO Complainant, the mandatory administrative proceeding requirements set forth in Paragraph 4 [protect.checkpoint.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r02/___https:/…> shall not prevent either you or the IGO Complainant from submitting the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction or arbitration for independent resolution before such mandatory administrative proceeding is commenced or after such proceeding is concluded.” Hopefully, this would remove any doubts as to whether the new mechanism excludes initiating arbitration before/during a UDRP proceeding. P.S. Document Links UDRP V5.0: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15sgAY3eEJwyqOka-p-o4B6ESvD5VOApaJgiN396… UDRP Rules V5.0: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SApPdhA4oYYxtD7XjX6Fb8FL5SWqZTe72zCK51P… Peter Eakin Policy Research Specialist, Policy Research & Stakeholder Programs Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: + 32 493 547 913 Office: 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt. 1, Brussels B-1040, Belgium

4 3

Reminder for input on UDRP V5.0 and NCSG ICANN85 Update Request
by Peter Eakin March 2, 2026

March 2, 2026

Dear IRT, Hope you are well and that many of you will make it to Mumbai. Just to flag two things: 1) Please leave any comments or suggestions on the latest UDRP updates by COB today for us to consider in advance of Saturday’s meeting: Document Links UDRP V5.0: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15sgAY3eEJwyqOka-p-o4B6ESvD5VOApaJgiN396… UDRP Rules V5.0: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SApPdhA4oYYxtD7XjX6Fb8FL5SWqZTe72zCK51P… 2) The chair of the NPOC constituency., Juan Manuel Rojas, has requested a 10–15-minute update on the IRT during the NCSG Membership session at ICANN85. The session is scheduled on Tuesday, 10 March, 1:15-2:30 local time. Given that the update requested concerns the IRT specifically, we wondered if any of you on the ground (or otherwise) would be available and interested in speaking to the NCSG and providing some insight into our work and progress ? Staff will assist in providing materials as requested/required. If so, please respond on list or let Renate or me know. Best wishes, Peter Peter Eakin Policy Research Specialist, Policy Research & Stakeholder Programs Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: + 32 493 547 913 Office: 6 Rond Point Schuman, Bt. 1, Brussels B-1040, Belgium

3 4