Dear IRT, In relation to my last email, forwarding recent comments from IGOs on their interpretation of the GNSO Resolution. These are already included in the IGO document issued moments ago, but reposting here so that they can be logged in our public archive. Best, 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: "Beril.ARI@oecd.org" <Beril.ARI@oecd.org> Date: Tuesday, 24 March 2026 at 18:23 To: Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org> Cc: "Mia.TUZOVIC@oecd.org" <Mia.TUZOVIC@oecd.org>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int" <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: Reminder for input on UDRP V5.0 and NCSG ICANN85 Update Request Dear Peter, There are several different ways to resolve a dispute — for example arbitration, court proceedings, or mediation etc. These are simply different mechanisms or different places (“fora”) where a dispute can be decided. Before the EPDP discussions, if someone wanted to challenge a decision made under the UDRP or URS, there was only one forum available: courts. However, IGOs cannot appear before national courts because of their immunities, so court being the only available forum created a problem. To fix that, the EPDP introduced arbitration as an alternative forum to challenge a UDRP/URS decision. However, it has always been possible for parties to choose arbitration directly, instead of starting a UDRP/URS process, or in parallel with it. Going to court or choosing arbitration instead of or in parallel of UDRP/URS has never been discussed during the very long history of these discussions; and it has never been part of the EPDP’s mandate and accordingly it has never been raised or discussed during the EPDP work either. The EPDP was only meant to introduce arbitration to challenge UDRP/URS decisions, not to regulate all arbitration or court proceedings that happens outside those UDRP/URS processes. As to your specific question, I think that using the expression “other forms of arbitration” might be misleading because there are not multiple forms of arbitration, “arbitration” is the generic term to cover that specific place/forum to decide a dispute. That said, your understanding on the following is correct: If the parties choose to go to arbitration instead of or in parallel of a UDRP/URS process, how this will be done (e.g which arbitration institution will be selected, governing law etc.) should not be regulated in UDRP/URS Rules. Because choosing arbitration (or going to court) instead of/in parallel with UDRP/URS is entirely separate from the UDRP/URS. Those parallel proceedings, whether they are pursued in courts or via arbitration, should continue exactly as they work today. By way of example, the parties can go to court (in principle) instead of or in parallel of a UDRP/URS process; but the UDRP/URS Rules do not say anything on that. Same principle should apply. I hope this brings more clarity; otherwise, I remain available to answer any further questions. Best, Beril From: Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>> Date: Friday, 20 March 2026 at 10:09 To: "Beril.ARI@oecd.org<mailto:Beril.ARI@oecd.org>" <Beril.ARI@oecd.org<mailto:Beril.ARI@oecd.org>> Cc: "Mia.TUZOVIC@oecd.org<mailto:Mia.TUZOVIC@oecd.org>" <Mia.TUZOVIC@oecd.org<mailto:Mia.TUZOVIC@oecd.org>>, "brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: Reminder for input on UDRP V5.0 and NCSG ICANN85 Update Request Dear Beril, I hope you’re well. Thank you again for providing this rationale so quickly. We are discussing internally and will be in touch with the wider IRT very soon. I would like to clarify one point, to make sure that your response is read as intended: Considering OECD’s view on the scope of the EPDP and the effect of the GNSO Resolution, is your opinion that the new arbitral process, accessed via an ICANN-approved provider, is not available until after a UDRP/URS determination is issued? In other words, prior to a determination, parties can seek other forms of legal proceedings (courts, other forms of arbitration) but they cannot use this new ICANN-created arbitral proceeding? Or is it OECD’s understanding that the new arbitral process is available to parties prior to a UDRP/URS determination if so wished, but that ICANN has no policy basis for regulating the details of how this new process may be initiated/operate in cases unrelated to challenges to UDRP/URS decisions? Apologies if this is already clear, I just want to quickly confirm your position to ensure that it is correctly understood. Thanks and 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