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:/w...> 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 -----------------------------------------------------