Exactly right, Chris - 15 APRIL everyone. My mistake! Peter Sent from my iPhone On 10 Apr 2026, at 16:56, Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital> wrote:  Please submit your responses as soon as possible, by Wednesday 15 May. Presumably you mean April... Cheers, CD Chris Disspain Senior Advisor on Policy and Internet Governance <AIorK4xWevLg7DM8FNJKXERnsV06zXuazaQVoJFTyAE5wjxp9tzIfz3Z3HM-Zvrkyy72U8Iwybs6ZGY.jpeg> On 10 Apr 2026, at 12:26, Peter Eakin via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org> wrote: 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]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYBd...>. 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 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IWMosNH3O8zLAoXhzOXc_lMzz7PM6j4ioRVyunCiBCI/edit?usp=drive_web&ouid=108439240790626178404__;!!PtGJab4!43pbziclBdVet5JhoWFMAuT9qXQq1RRvyrpwNL99jS2bGhZYAKn5Bobp3ndjLG1h6Mle2KhCgDf0tJ881Tybg2CdqJ-vcdf_2NVyNYFj$>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 _______________________________________________ Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt mailing list -- igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt-leave@icann.org>

I agree 100% with Zak who said this better and more succint than I would have. And, we are seeking public comment anyway, so if there is an outcry about this during the comment period, we can always revisit. So, lets get this out for comment. Sincerely, Jeff On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 2:36 PM Zak Muscovitch via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org> wrote:

Thank you, Peter for inviting IRT members to provide their feedback on the IGOs’ position that respondents not be permitted to commence arbitration prior to UDRP decision unless IGOs consent.

I want to state at the outset, that at this late point there is a compelling interest in getting this IRT done, but I would of course like to see this done with the full support of IGOs who are of course central to this process.

I also try to remain mindful of how likely the contingencies we are planning for are to occur. I don’t expect that we will see much in the way of IGOs going after righteous registrations and as a result, do not anticipate Respondents in such proceedings having to often resort to arbitration or the courts.

That being said, I have three points to make in relation to the issues at hand, as I attempted to set out in last week’s call:

1. This appears to have already been decided. The Council’s Resolution states inter alia, as follows:

Resolved,

*“The GNSO Council confirms that the intent of the EPDP policy recommendations was to enable the respondent to a UDRP or URS dispute to voluntarily leverage alternative dispute resolution mechanisms at any time once the UDRP or URS proceeding has been initiated, and the policy recommendations enabling the new arbitral proceeding should not be read to limit that ability.”*

Accordingly, I am very apprehensive about relitigating of this issue and am concerned about having to send this back to Council and any further delays in finalizing this IRT.

2. The IGOs objective with the original policy development process was to enable them to avoid having to submit to Mutual Jurisdiction when commencing a UDRP, due to not wanting to give up their privileges and immunities to a national court.

That has been accommodated, but the quid pro quo of that - to my understanding - was that there be an arbitration procedure available instead which would approximate recourse to courts as best as possible.

The UDRP enables parties to go to court before, during, or after a UDRP proceeding. Accordingly, the new arbitration procedure was designed to enable recourse to arbitration at any time as well.

However in order to truly afford a respondent genuine recourse to arbitration in a like fashion as it has to courts under the UDRP, it must be available not just after a UDRP decision, but after a UDRP is commenced as well. And it must be mandatory, because otherwise IGOs could simply decline arbitration post commencement.

3. It seems undesirable to force a Respondent to wait out a UDRP when it has indicated that it wants to arbitrate – both from the perspective of IGOs and for Respondents. It just delays things and runs up costs.

It also seems against IGO interests to prevent a Respondent from going to arbitration prior to a UDRP decision. Such an approach could compel a Respondent to try its luck in court despite no submission to mutual jurisdiction, at substantial expense and headache to both IGOs and Respondents.

Moreover, a Respondent intent on arbitration, would wait out the UDRP proceeding only to go to arbitration de novo afterwards. This would be inefficient for IGOs since inevitably they would end up in arbitration even though they had prevented it from occurring earlier on.

*Additional Possible Solutions*

There is however, a potential way of further accommodating IGOs here - even though I believe that this has already been decided, as I stated above.

If the IGOs’ concern is ‘not wanting to have to undergo contemporaneous proceedings’ (a UDRP plus a contemporaneous arbitration, if the arbitration is post-Commencement of the UDRP), *then perhaps we can explore the mandatory termination of a pending UDRP* upon commencement of an arbitration. Failing that or another solution, I support Option 1, i.e. “that the UDRP and URS documentation would include narrowly scoped provisions addressing pre- determination use of the new Arbitral Proceeding, as reflected in the current drafts.”

If however, IGOs are concerned about the current drafting for a different reason that I have not considered here, I would like to hear it so that an appropriate accommodation can perhaps be reached.

Regarding Staff’s *“Additional Proposal”* (below), I would be willing to consider this as well. I think it is a creative solution, however I would be concerned that IGOs would needlessly cause UDRP costs to be incurred (for themselves and possibly for Respondents) when they end up at arbitration afterwards anyhow, so it seems there are some practicality and efficiency issues to consider.

Zak Muscovitch

General Counsel, ICA

*From:* Peter Eakin via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt < igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org> *Sent:* Friday, April 10, 2026 11:22 AM *To:* Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital> *Cc:* igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org *Subject:* [Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt] Re: [Ext] Re: ICANN IGO-INGO IRT: Request for Input and Proposal

Exactly right, Chris - 15 APRIL everyone. My mistake!

Peter

Sent from my iPhone

On 10 Apr 2026, at 16:56, Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital> wrote:



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

Presumably you mean April...

Cheers,

CD

Chris Disspain

Senior Advisor on Policy and Internet Governance

<AIorK4xWevLg7DM8FNJKXERnsV06zXuazaQVoJFTyAE5wjxp9tzIfz3Z3HM-Zvrkyy72U8Iwybs6ZGY.jpeg>

On 10 Apr 2026, at 12:26, Peter Eakin via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt < igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org> wrote:

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] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYBd...> .

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 [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1IWMosNH3O8zLAoXhzOXc_lMzz7PM6j4ioRVyunCiBCI/edit?usp=drive_web&ouid=108439240790626178404__;!!PtGJab4!43pbziclBdVet5JhoWFMAuT9qXQq1RRvyrpwNL99jS2bGhZYAKn5Bobp3ndjLG1h6Mle2KhCgDf0tJ881Tybg2CdqJ-vcdf_2NVyNYFj$>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

_______________________________________________ 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

_______________________________________________ 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

-- ***Please Note that JJN Solutions, LLC is now JJN Solutions Law, PLLC*** Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions Law, PLLC +1.202.549.5079 Jeff@jjnsolutions.com https://www.jjnsolutions.com *This email and any attachments are intended only for the person or entity to which they are addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, use, disclose, or distribute this message. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system.* *Nothing in this email is intended to create, and receipt does not establish, an attorney-client relationship unless expressly agreed in writing by JJN Solutions Law, PLLC. Any legal advice contained in this communication is provided solely for the client identified and may not be relied upon by any other person.*

Dear Peter, all, We take note of the strong reactions and firmly held positions expressed by IRT members, as well as the determination to proceed to public comment on this basis. With respect to our concerns about expanding arbitration to a pre‑determination, beyond the fact that this would exceed the scope of the EPDP recommendations —which we consider significant—there may also be some practical implications for IGOs. In particular, IGOs would face the risk of being drawn into arbitration as a primary or parallel avenue to the UDRP/URS, rather than for an appeal mechanism. Such proceeding would likely be more time‑consuming and costly than an appeal‑based process, increasing both procedural complexity and financial exposure for IGOs. That said, at this stage, and mindful of the reactions expressed, we are prepared to consider the Additional Proposal outlined in Peter’s email. Finally, it is important to recall that IGOs made meaningful concessions during the EPDP work in the interest of good faith and forward progress. By way of example, we agreed to an appeal mechanism—namely, the arbitral proceeding in question—that applies only in cases where IGOs prevail, despite the inherent imbalance of IGOs having no appeal mechanism when they lose a UDRP case. While it would have been reasonable and equitable for such an appeal mechanism to be available to both parties, we consciously chose not to reopen that issue during the IRT in order to remain within the confines of the EPDP recommendations. However, now that the scope is being expanded in any event on the basis of fairness considerations, we respectfully raise the question of whether it would not be equally fair to revisit that balance as well. With respect to the timing of proceeding to public comment while continuing work on the issue, we can consider that approach provided there remains room to make further adjustments to the Rules. Best, Beril Restricted Use - À usage restreint From: Jeff Neuman via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org> Sent: 16 April, 2026 3:57 PM To: Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org> Cc: igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org Subject: [Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt] Re: ICANN IGO-INGO IRT: Request for Input and Proposal Peter, I would also like to hear about just getting this paper out for public comment even if it means we ask a specific question on this topic. It seems we keep raising new issues and postponing the public comment, which sets us back months. Working on this issue during the public comment period is an option, but stalling the comment period makes no sense to me. At the end of the day, registries have now waited since 2014 (12 years) to release the Acronyms. With the new round opening in two weeks, if we proceed at this pace, we may not finalize and implement this before the first new 2026 Round TLDs launch. Sincerely, Jeff On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 4:24 AM Peter Eakin via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> wrote: Dear IRT, Thank you for those of you who responded to my email. Your feedback on both items is appreciated and very helpful. In the interests of gathering as many viewpoints as possible, can I ask that any member who wishes to respond but has yet to do so, reply by COB Friday 17 April? We are entering a busy meeting/travelling period for many of us, with the ICANN Contracted Parties Summit in Manchester on 27-29 April just one event that will place demands on our time. Having as many of your positions on record as possible will therefore aid staff in working quickly and with maximum agility to plot next steps. We are especially interested to hear the thoughts of IGO representatives within the IRT, including on Item 2: ‘Additional Proposal regarding IGO Consent to Arbitration’. Many thanks, 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 From: Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>> Date: Friday, 10 April 2026 at 13:26 To: "igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>" <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Subject: ICANN IGO-INGO IRT: Request for Input and Proposal 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]<https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r02/___https:/urldefense.com/v3/__https:/i...>. 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<https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r02/___https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1...> 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 _______________________________________________ Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt mailing list -- igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt-leave@icann.org> -- **Please Note that JJN Solutions, LLC is now JJN Solutions Law, PLLC** [cid:image001.png@01DCCDCE.49A8D270] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions Law, PLLC +1.202.549.5079 Jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:Jeff@jjnsolutions.com> https://www.jjnsolutions.com<https://protect.checkpoint.com/v2/r02/___https:/www.jjnsolutions.com___.YzJlOm9lY2Q6YzpvOjc0ZmI5Y2NkZTU3ZjUzOTNmMjIxNzkyNDdiNzJiN2RiOjc6YjFhNDpjOTZjZjJmZmFhYTBjOWNkNzRhNzgyNTA4MmVlNDNkOTkxMmMzYWYzZjJkY2QwMzgwMTc3OTI2ZDY4OTQ0NjFhOmg6VDpG> This email and any attachments are intended only for the person or entity to which they are addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, use, disclose, or distribute this message. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Nothing in this email is intended to create, and receipt does not establish, an attorney-client relationship unless expressly agreed in writing by JJN Solutions Law, PLLC. Any legal advice contained in this communication is provided solely for the client identified and may not be relied upon by any other person. This communication is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorised by the sender to receive it. Any unauthorised disclosure, use, or publication of this information is not allowed. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Cette communication est uniquement destinée à la personne ou à l’entité à laquelle elle est adressée et à d’autres autorisées par l’émetteur à la recevoir. Aucune divulgation, utilisation ou publication de ces informations n’est autorisée. Si vous avez reçu cette communication par erreur, veuillez en notifier l’émetteur immédiatement et la détruire de votre système.