Dear IRT,

Thank you for those who attended our call yesterday. It was a lively, interesting discussion. I urge those unable to attend to review the recording on the meeting wiki page [icann-community.atlassian.net].

I wish to bring two items to your attention:

Item 1: Request for Input

As I requested at the end of the call, to best help staff progress this project we would like all IRT members, including those who spoke on yesterday’s call, to submit answers to the following questions on the email list. Feel free to include additional thoughts/information that you feel may be useful.

When submitting your response, it would helpful if you set out your argument supported by reference to the underlying principles and logic on which it is based. Clarifying the ‘why’ behind your position – e.g. policy interpretation concerns, practical impacts/problems - will make it easier for staff to identify where views algin or differ:

• Do you believe the IRT is resolving a policy disagreement (e.g. how to interpret the Final Report/WG intent) or an implementation disagreement (how to address the pre-determination use of the new arbitral mechanism in the UDRP Rules or elsewhere)?

• Should the EPDP developed arbitral mechanism be available for use before a UDRP or URS determination? Please explain why you disagree with the alternative point of view (whether for or against pre-determination availability)

• What do you believe are the practical differences, if any, between potential use of the EPDP arbitral mechanism and general arbitration in a pre UDRP or URS determination context? If parties already have the right to arbitrate privately at any time, what are the benefits/objections to allowing this via the EPDP arbitral mechanism?

• Why is it important that pre-determination use of the EPDP developed arbitral mechanism be addressed/not be addressed by ICANN? If it should/can be addressed, how/where should this be accomplished?

• Do you consider any of the 4 options advanced by ICANN in the options paper as offering, or forming the basis of, a path forward on this issue?

Please submit your responses as soon as possible, by Wednesday 15 May.

Item 2: Additional Proposal regarding IGO Consent to Arbitration

On yesterday’s call, an IGO representative noted that one of the main concerns with allowing pre-determination use of the EPDP arbitral process was that, under the EPDP recommendations, by filing a UDRP, IGOs must consent to arbitration as a challenge to a UDRP/URS decision. However, IGOs object to being required to consent to a ‘parallel’ arbitration that takes place before a UDRP/URS decision has been reached, as is the case in the most recent draft updates .

Following internal discussions, staff would like to put the following proposal to the IGOs/wider IRT for your consideration as a possible compromise:

• The new Arbitral Proceeding exists and can be filed by a registrant at any time after a UDRP/URS is filed.
• However, an IGO is not required to consent to resolution via arbitral proceeding until after a UDRP/URS decision is issued.
• A Registrant can elect arbitration once a complaint is filed, and the IGO at that time can decide whether to agree to consent to arbitration or not.
• In this scenario, there is no direct impact to the UDRP or URS proceeding unless the parties elect to terminate the proceeding

We are interested to hear your thoughts on this proposal as soon as possible.

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