On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 7:08 AM Chris Disspain via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org> wrote:
So, we would then need to create a recommendation that sets out the process for that wouldn’t we? Our recommendation 3 doesn’t do that. I’m not against the principle, I just don’t think it is what we said in EPDP and even if I am wrong and that is what we intended it clearly isn’t countenanced in rec 3, or am I missing something??_______________________________________________
Cheers,CD
Chris Disspain
+44 7880 642456
On 4 Dec 2025, at 13:04, BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote: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 rationalesChris,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.World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
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