I would summarize as: if the parties agree they want to more quickly move to arbitration, that is a choice that can be honored, and equally if one or both prefer to let a UDRP case run its course first – which they very well may, insofar as they would find that more familiar and efficient – then that is also a choice that can be honored.

From: Jeff Neuman via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 1:45 PM
To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org>
Cc: igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org
Subject: [Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt] Re: ICANN IGO CURATIVE RIGHTS - Links to current redlines and request for written rationales

Chris,

Not sure you had time to read all of the emails on the list, but your position is contrary to mine, Brian’s and Zak’s. It’s not about when an Arbitration can be filed (because like with a regular UDRP with respect to a Court), ICANN could never prevent the parties from going to Arbitration, especially where both parties consent, but rather how the Provider/Panels deal with that situation.

As previously stated, the language today with respect to Courts, is essentially the same as the language we are discussing except that has been interpreted over the past almost 30 years as allowing the registrant to file a Court case at any time.

If a registrant files a Court case while a UDRP Proceeding is going on, if both parties consent, the UDRP will be administratively dismissed by the Provider.

If the Complainant, however, still wants a UDRP decision, the Provider has the Panelist decide whether it wants to nonetheless go ahead with the decision or whether it wants to dismiss the action pending the court action (dismissal without prejudice).

Again, the language with respect to arbitration is the same in the relevant paragraphs as the language with respect to Courts in the existing UDRP. Why would we treat arbitration any differently than courts with the identical language?

My view is that we need to be consistent. Just because the we have agreed to allow IGOs to not have to sign up to mutual jurisdiction should not mean we are also prohibiting the registrant as well from going straight to arbitration once the case is filed against it.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey J. Neuman

Founder & CEO

JJN Solutions, LLC

+1.202.549.5079

Jeff@jjnsolutions.com

From: Chris Disspain via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 6:54 AM
To: Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org>
Cc: igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>
Subject: [Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt] Re: ICANN IGO CURATIVE RIGHTS - Links to current redlines and request for written rationales

Thanks Peter for referring me to the rationale document you have produced.

All,

First of all, I hope we are now all clear that it is not necessary for there to be a court finding prior to arbitration. Assuming that to be the case then the only question is whether the EPDP recommendations intended that it would be possible to elect arbitration before a UDRP (URS) finding.

As a number of famous people have said on numerous occasions, ‘recollections can vary’ and I am acutely conscious that my memory of events, discussions and outcomes is often flawed. So I’ve looked at the actual recommendations of the EPDP to see if conclusions can be drawn from those.

Whilst I agree that recommendation 2.1.2 (b) (iii) could be interpreted to mean that the binding arbitration process can be initiated 'at any time' I don’t think that interpretation aligns with recommendation 3 which is the key recommendation in setting out how the process should be used. It is clear to me that recommendation 3 was written on the basis that the arbitration would be post UDRP. Phrases such as:

‘...arbitral review following a UDRP Proceeding’ in the title

‘…final determination of the outcome of the UDRP proceeding settled through arbitration.’ in 3 (i)

‘In communicating a UDRP panel decision….information regarding the applicable arbitral rules.’ in 3 (ii)

together with the whole registrar waiting 10 days stuff etc., clearly indicate that the EPDP was working on the basis that a UDRP decision would be required prior to arbitration.

If other past members of the EPDP disagree that this was what we intended then I suggest we get together to discuss ASAP.

Cheers,

CD

Chris Disspain

+44 7880 642456

On 3 Dec 2025, at 15:30, Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital> wrote:

Hi Peter,

Thanks for this.

As requested on call, if possible can you please send a brief rationale on list explaining how the arbitration pre-determination (UDRP/URSP) could be implemented in line with current policy language, and/or the additions required to do so that would not involve re-opening the Final Report.

If I understand your position, you believe that it should not be possible to go to arbitration unless and until a UDRP decision has been made. Assuming I am correct It would help me enormously if you could call out the specific part of the docs listed below containing your rationale for that.

Cheers,

CD

Chris Disspain

+44 7880 642456

<AIorK4xWevLg7DM8FNJKXERnsV06zXuazaQVoJFTyAE5wjxp9tzIfz3Z3HM-Zvrkyy72U8Iwybs6ZGY.jpeg>

On 3 Dec 2025, at 15:18, Peter Eakin via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org> wrote:

Dear IRT,

As promised on our call, find below links to the documents discussed on call:

Staff Rationale for Current Redline Approach: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CDkX-FNmNMncwVS6VBoKL2aDnKSmOrQ-SlTKVzptrZg/edit?tab=t.0

Current redlines:

UDRP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OCUXfE4gn7-rPJDLLOz_FopVZfRwZl8zmct7VMghw8o/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.i8soj2yx4de

UDRP RULES: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xIsvV0VhWTOQtxu2aEQmQCUYuA5GrTtwemROWizJaqo/edit?tab=t.0

URS: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azc-wp3mBXF404vZsEfr1l6mYyWGo3udlkWjqkgDEZQ/edit?tab=t.0

URS RULES: https://docs.google.com/document/d/128O8E2EpVg3Rqfe3qtmG1XEITLuoe5Z2Sndw74iO7YM/edit?tab=t.0

Thank you for a productive call. As requested on call, if possible can you please send a brief rationale on list explaining how the arbitration pre-determination (UDRP/URSP) could be implemented in line with current policy language, and/or the additions required to do so that would not involve re-opening the Final Report. This would be very helpful in understanding the IRTs collective position on this issue.

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

_______________________________________________
Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt mailing list -- igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt-leave@icann.org