ICANN IGO CURATIVE RIGHTS - Links to current redlines and request for written rationales
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-SlTKVzpt... Current redlines: UDRP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OCUXfE4gn7-rPJDLLOz_FopVZfRwZl8zmct7VMgh... UDRP RULES: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xIsvV0VhWTOQtxu2aEQmQCUYuA5GrTtwemROWizJ... URS: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azc-wp3mBXF404vZsEfr1l6mYyWGo3udlkWjqkgD... URS RULES: https://docs.google.com/document/d/128O8E2EpVg3Rqfe3qtmG1XEITLuoe5Z2Sndw74iO... 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
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 
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-SlTKVzpt...
Current redlines:
UDRP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OCUXfE4gn7-rPJDLLOz_FopVZfRwZl8zmct7VMgh...
UDRP RULES: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xIsvV0VhWTOQtxu2aEQmQCUYuA5GrTtwemROWizJ...
URS: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azc-wp3mBXF404vZsEfr1l6mYyWGo3udlkWjqkgD...
URS RULES: https://docs.google.com/document/d/128O8E2EpVg3Rqfe3qtmG1XEITLuoe5Z2Sndw74iO...
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 <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>
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-SlTKVzpt...
Current redlines:
UDRP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OCUXfE4gn7-rPJDLLOz_FopVZfRwZl8zmct7VMgh...
UDRP RULES: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xIsvV0VhWTOQtxu2aEQmQCUYuA5GrTtwemROWizJ...
URS: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azc-wp3mBXF404vZsEfr1l6mYyWGo3udlkWjqkgD...
URS RULES: https://docs.google.com/document/d/128O8E2EpVg3Rqfe3qtmG1XEITLuoe5Z2Sndw74iO...
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 <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>
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 [AIorK4xWevLg7DM8FNJKXERnsV06zXuazaQVoJFTyAE5wjxp9tzIfz3Z3HM-Zvrkyy72U8Iwybs6ZGY.jpeg] 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-SlTKVzpt... Current redlines: UDRP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OCUXfE4gn7-rPJDLLOz_FopVZfRwZl8zmct7VMgh... UDRP RULES: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xIsvV0VhWTOQtxu2aEQmQCUYuA5GrTtwemROWizJ... URS: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azc-wp3mBXF404vZsEfr1l6mYyWGo3udlkWjqkgD... URS RULES: https://docs.google.com/document/d/128O8E2EpVg3Rqfe3qtmG1XEITLuoe5Z2Sndw74iO... 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<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 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<mailto:Jeff@jjnsolutions.com> ________________________________ From: Chris Disspain via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 6:54 AM To: Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>> Cc: 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: [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 [cid:image001.jpg@01DC6526.E99CC400] On 3 Dec 2025, at 15:30, Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto: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<mailto: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-SlTKVzpt... Current redlines: UDRP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OCUXfE4gn7-rPJDLLOz_FopVZfRwZl8zmct7VMgh... UDRP RULES: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xIsvV0VhWTOQtxu2aEQmQCUYuA5GrTtwemROWizJ... URS: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azc-wp3mBXF404vZsEfr1l6mYyWGo3udlkWjqkgD... URS RULES: https://docs.google.com/document/d/128O8E2EpVg3Rqfe3qtmG1XEITLuoe5Z2Sndw74iO... 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<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> 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.
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 <mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 1:45 PM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital <mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org <mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>> Cc: igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Jeff@jjnsolutions.com> From: Chris Disspain via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org <mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 6:54 AM To: Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org <mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>> Cc: 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: [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
<image001.jpg>
On 3 Dec 2025, at 15:30, Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital <mailto: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 <mailto: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-SlTKVzpt...
Current redlines:
UDRP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OCUXfE4gn7-rPJDLLOz_FopVZfRwZl8zmct7VMgh...
UDRP RULES: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xIsvV0VhWTOQtxu2aEQmQCUYuA5GrTtwemROWizJ...
URS: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azc-wp3mBXF404vZsEfr1l6mYyWGo3udlkWjqkgD...
URS RULES: https://docs.google.com/document/d/128O8E2EpVg3Rqfe3qtmG1XEITLuoe5Z2Sndw74iO...
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 <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>
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.
I agree with Jeff, Zak & Brian's position, but understand and appreciate Chris' stance. Sincerely, Jay Chapman 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
[image: AIorK4xWevLg7DM8FNJKXERnsV06zXuazaQVoJFTyAE5wjxp9tzIfz3Z3HM-Zvrkyy72U8Iwybs6ZGY.jpeg]
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 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
<image001.jpg>
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-SlTKVzpt... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CDkX-FNmNMncwVS6VBoKL2aDnKSmOrQ-SlTKVzptrZg/edit?tab=t.0>*
*Current redlines*:
UDRP: *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OCUXfE4gn7-rPJDLLOz_FopVZfRwZl8zmct7VMgh... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OCUXfE4gn7-rPJDLLOz_FopVZfRwZl8zmct7VMghw8o/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.i8soj2yx4de>*
UDRP RULES: *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xIsvV0VhWTOQtxu2aEQmQCUYuA5GrTtwemROWizJ... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xIsvV0VhWTOQtxu2aEQmQCUYuA5GrTtwemROWizJaqo/edit?tab=t.0>*
URS: *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azc-wp3mBXF404vZsEfr1l6mYyWGo3udlkWjqkgD... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azc-wp3mBXF404vZsEfr1l6mYyWGo3udlkWjqkgDEZQ/edit?tab=t.0>*
URS RULES: *https://docs.google.com/document/d/128O8E2EpVg3Rqfe3qtmG1XEITLuoe5Z2Sndw74iO... <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 <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-leave@icann.org>*
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
I also agree with Jeff, Zak, and Brian. Chris, appreciate your input too of course. Thanks, Damon J. Damon Ashcraft , P.C. O: 602.382.6389<tel:602.382.6389> | M: 602.510.1640<tel:602.510.1640> dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com> SNELL & WILMER swlaw.com<https://us.content.exclaimer.net?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.swlaw.com%2F&tenantid...> | LinkedIn<https://us.content.exclaimer.net?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompan...> One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004‑2556 Albuquerque | Boise | Dallas | Denver | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Los Cabos | Orange County | Palo Alto | Phoenix | Portland | Reno-Tahoe | Salt Lake City | San Diego | Seattle | Tucson | Washington, D.C. This email and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone. Please notify the sender by return email and delete this email as well as any attachments from your system. From: Jay Chapman via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 8:16 AM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital> Cc: BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@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 [EXTERNAL] igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org> ________________________________ I agree with Jeff, Zak & Brian's position, but understand and appreciate Chris' stance. Sincerely, Jay Chapman On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 7:08 AM Chris Disspain via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto: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 [cid:image001.jpg@01DC64F8.C847FBE0] On 4 Dec 2025, at 13:04, BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto: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<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 1:45 PM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>> Cc: igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Jeff@jjnsolutions.com> ________________________________ From: Chris Disspain via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 6:54 AM To: Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>> Cc: 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: [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 <image001.jpg> On 3 Dec 2025, at 15:30, Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto: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<mailto: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<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<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<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xIsvV0VhWTOQtxu2aEQmQCUYuA5GrTtwemROWizJaqo/edit?tab=t.0> URS: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azc-wp3mBXF404vZsEfr1l6mYyWGo3udlkWjqkgDEZQ/edit?tab=t.0<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<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<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> 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<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>
Damon, Brian, Jay, Jeff, So, could we get clear what we are saying please? Is the point that we intended this new binding arbitration to be available at all times in which case rec 3 is deficient? Or is it something else? I thought we were setting up a ’special’ arbitration process just for IGO disputes and so I’m lost as to the relevance of Jeff’s point on consistency. This is a discrete, bespoke, process isn't it? If it is not then why did we write recommendation 3 specifically to deal with how this bespoke process should be organised? Cheers, CD Chris Disspain +44 7880 642456 
On 4 Dec 2025, at 15:35, Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com> wrote:
I also agree with Jeff, Zak, and Brian. Chris, appreciate your input too of course.
Thanks, Damon
J. Damon Ashcraft , P.C. O: 602.382.6389 <tel:602.382.6389> | M: 602.510.1640 <tel:602.510.1640> dashcraft@swlaw.com <mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com> SNELL & WILMER swlaw.com <https://us.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.swlaw.com%2F&tenanti...> | LinkedIn <https://us.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompa...> One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004‑2556 Albuquerque | Boise | Dallas | Denver | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Los Cabos | Orange County | Palo Alto | Phoenix | Portland | Reno-Tahoe | Salt Lake City | San Diego | Seattle | Tucson | Washington, D.C. This email and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone. Please notify the sender by return email and delete this email as well as any attachments from your system.
From: Jay Chapman via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org <mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 8:16 AM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital <mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>> Cc: BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com <mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org <mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>>; igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org <mailto: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
[EXTERNAL] igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org <mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>
I agree with Jeff, Zak & Brian's position, but understand and appreciate Chris' stance.
Sincerely, Jay Chapman
On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 7:08 AM Chris Disspain via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org <mailto: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
<image001.jpg>
On 4 Dec 2025, at 13:04, BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int <mailto: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 <mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 1:45 PM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital <mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org <mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>> Cc: igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Jeff@jjnsolutions.com> From: Chris Disspain via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org <mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 6:54 AM To: Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org <mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>> Cc: 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: [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
<image001.jpg>
On 3 Dec 2025, at 15:30, Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital <mailto: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 <mailto: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-SlTKVzpt...
Current redlines:
UDRP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OCUXfE4gn7-rPJDLLOz_FopVZfRwZl8zmct7VMgh...
UDRP RULES: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xIsvV0VhWTOQtxu2aEQmQCUYuA5GrTtwemROWizJ...
URS: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azc-wp3mBXF404vZsEfr1l6mYyWGo3udlkWjqkgD...
URS RULES: https://docs.google.com/document/d/128O8E2EpVg3Rqfe3qtmG1XEITLuoe5Z2Sndw74iO...
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 <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>
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 <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>
Chris, I’ll let Jeff speak for himself but my point is that once people get into a UDRP the parties shouldn’t be locked into it if they both want to try to resolve the dispute in another way. That could include arbitration, “special” arbitration for IGO’s, etc. The UDRP is a voluntary and non-binding on courts and we should this be the rule too for IGO’s which will make the UDRP consistent with how it’s used in other more traditional contexts. Thanks, Damon J. Damon Ashcraft , P.C. O: 602.382.6389<tel:602.382.6389> | M: 602.510.1640<tel:602.510.1640> dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com> SNELL & WILMER swlaw.com<https://us.content.exclaimer.net?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.swlaw.com%2F&tenantid...> | LinkedIn<https://us.content.exclaimer.net?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompan...> One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004‑2556 Albuquerque | Boise | Dallas | Denver | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Los Cabos | Orange County | Palo Alto | Phoenix | Portland | Reno-Tahoe | Salt Lake City | San Diego | Seattle | Tucson | Washington, D.C. This email and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone. Please notify the sender by return email and delete this email as well as any attachments from your system. From: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 8:47 AM To: Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com> Cc: Jay Chapman <jay@digimedia.com>; BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org>; igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt] ICANN IGO CURATIVE RIGHTS - Links to current redlines and request for written rationales [EXTERNAL] chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital> ________________________________ Damon, Brian, Jay, Jeff, So, could we get clear what we are saying please? Is the point that we intended this new binding arbitration to be available at all times in which case rec 3 is deficient? Or is it something else? I thought we were setting up a ’special’ arbitration process just for IGO disputes and so I’m lost as to the relevance of Jeff’s point on consistency. This is a discrete, bespoke, process isn't it? If it is not then why did we write recommendation 3 specifically to deal with how this bespoke process should be organised? Cheers, CD Chris Disspain +44 7880 642456 [cid:image001.jpg@01DC64FF.BD5DEE40] On 4 Dec 2025, at 15:35, Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com>> wrote: I also agree with Jeff, Zak, and Brian. Chris, appreciate your input too of course. Thanks, Damon J. Damon Ashcraft , P.C. O: 602.382.6389<tel:602.382.6389> | M: 602.510.1640<tel:602.510.1640> dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com> SNELL & WILMER swlaw.com<https://us.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.swlaw.com%2F&tenanti...> | LinkedIn<https://us.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompa...> One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004‑2556 Albuquerque | Boise | Dallas | Denver | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Los Cabos | Orange County | Palo Alto | Phoenix | Portland | Reno-Tahoe | Salt Lake City | San Diego | Seattle | Tucson | Washington, D.C. This email and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone. Please notify the sender by return email and delete this email as well as any attachments from your system. From: Jay Chapman via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 8:16 AM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>> Cc: BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>>; igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto: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 [EXTERNAL] igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org> ________________________________ I agree with Jeff, Zak & Brian's position, but understand and appreciate Chris' stance. Sincerely, Jay Chapman On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 7:08 AM Chris Disspain via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto: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 <image001.jpg> On 4 Dec 2025, at 13:04, BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto: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<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 1:45 PM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>> Cc: igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Jeff@jjnsolutions.com> ________________________________ From: Chris Disspain via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 6:54 AM To: Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>> Cc: 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: [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 <image001.jpg> On 3 Dec 2025, at 15:30, Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto: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<mailto: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<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<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<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xIsvV0VhWTOQtxu2aEQmQCUYuA5GrTtwemROWizJaqo/edit?tab=t.0> URS: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azc-wp3mBXF404vZsEfr1l6mYyWGo3udlkWjqkgDEZQ/edit?tab=t.0<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<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<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> 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<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>
Damon, …and I think that is valid point that makes sense to me. The problem is that doing that means rec 3 needs to be amended to allow for that to happen. If we think that what you said below is the ‘right thing to do’ then cool, but how do we align rec 3 (and 4) with that? Cheers, CD Chris Disspain +44 7880 642456 
On 4 Dec 2025, at 16:26, Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com> wrote:
Chris,
I’ll let Jeff speak for himself but my point is that once people get into a UDRP the parties shouldn’t be locked into it if they both want to try to resolve the dispute in another way. That could include arbitration, “special” arbitration for IGO’s, etc. The UDRP is a voluntary and non-binding on courts and we should this be the rule too for IGO’s which will make the UDRP consistent with how it’s used in other more traditional contexts.
Thanks, Damon
J. Damon Ashcraft , P.C. O: 602.382.6389 <tel:602.382.6389> | M: 602.510.1640 <tel:602.510.1640> dashcraft@swlaw.com <mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com> SNELL & WILMER swlaw.com <https://us.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.swlaw.com%2F&tenanti...> | LinkedIn <https://us.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompa...> One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004‑2556 Albuquerque | Boise | Dallas | Denver | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Los Cabos | Orange County | Palo Alto | Phoenix | Portland | Reno-Tahoe | Salt Lake City | San Diego | Seattle | Tucson | Washington, D.C. This email and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone. Please notify the sender by return email and delete this email as well as any attachments from your system.
From: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital <mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 8:47 AM To: Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com <mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com>> Cc: Jay Chapman <jay@digimedia.com <mailto:jay@digimedia.com>>; BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com <mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org <mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>>; igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org <mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt] ICANN IGO CURATIVE RIGHTS - Links to current redlines and request for written rationales
[EXTERNAL] chris.disspain@identity.digital <mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>
Damon, Brian, Jay, Jeff,
So, could we get clear what we are saying please?
Is the point that we intended this new binding arbitration to be available at all times in which case rec 3 is deficient?
Or is it something else?
I thought we were setting up a ’special’ arbitration process just for IGO disputes and so I’m lost as to the relevance of Jeff’s point on consistency. This is a discrete, bespoke, process isn't it? If it is not then why did we write recommendation 3 specifically to deal with how this bespoke process should be organised?
Cheers,
CD
Chris Disspain
+44 7880 642456
<image001.jpg>
On 4 Dec 2025, at 15:35, Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com <mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com>> wrote:
I also agree with Jeff, Zak, and Brian. Chris, appreciate your input too of course.
Thanks, Damon
J. Damon Ashcraft , P.C. O: 602.382.6389 <tel:602.382.6389> | M: 602.510.1640 <tel:602.510.1640> dashcraft@swlaw.com <mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com> SNELL & WILMER swlaw.com <https://us.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.swlaw.com%2F&tenanti...> | LinkedIn <https://us.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompa...> One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004‑2556 Albuquerque | Boise | Dallas | Denver | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Los Cabos | Orange County | Palo Alto | Phoenix | Portland | Reno-Tahoe | Salt Lake City | San Diego | Seattle | Tucson | Washington, D.C. This email and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone. Please notify the sender by return email and delete this email as well as any attachments from your system.
From: Jay Chapman via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org <mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 8:16 AM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital <mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>> Cc: BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com <mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org <mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>>; igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org <mailto: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
[EXTERNAL] igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org <mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>
I agree with Jeff, Zak & Brian's position, but understand and appreciate Chris' stance.
Sincerely, Jay Chapman
On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 7:08 AM Chris Disspain via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org <mailto: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
<image001.jpg>
On 4 Dec 2025, at 13:04, BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int <mailto: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 <mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 1:45 PM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital <mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org <mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>> Cc: igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Jeff@jjnsolutions.com> From: Chris Disspain via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org <mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 6:54 AM To: Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org <mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>> Cc: 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: [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
<image001.jpg>
On 3 Dec 2025, at 15:30, Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital <mailto: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 <mailto: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-SlTKVzpt...
Current redlines:
UDRP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OCUXfE4gn7-rPJDLLOz_FopVZfRwZl8zmct7VMgh...
UDRP RULES: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xIsvV0VhWTOQtxu2aEQmQCUYuA5GrTtwemROWizJ...
URS: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azc-wp3mBXF404vZsEfr1l6mYyWGo3udlkWjqkgD...
URS RULES: https://docs.google.com/document/d/128O8E2EpVg3Rqfe3qtmG1XEITLuoe5Z2Sndw74iO...
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 <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>
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 <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>
Thanks Chris. I think we should amend rec 3 then. We want to encourage the UDRP process and what we have outlined below does that. J. Damon Ashcraft , P.C. O: 602.382.6389<tel:602.382.6389> | M: 602.510.1640<tel:602.510.1640> dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com> SNELL & WILMER swlaw.com<https://us.content.exclaimer.net?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.swlaw.com%2F&tenantid...> | LinkedIn<https://us.content.exclaimer.net?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompan...> One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004‑2556 Albuquerque | Boise | Dallas | Denver | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Los Cabos | Orange County | Palo Alto | Phoenix | Portland | Reno-Tahoe | Salt Lake City | San Diego | Seattle | Tucson | Washington, D.C. This email and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone. Please notify the sender by return email and delete this email as well as any attachments from your system. From: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 9:44 AM To: Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com> Cc: Jay Chapman <jay@digimedia.com>; BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org>; igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt] ICANN IGO CURATIVE RIGHTS - Links to current redlines and request for written rationales [EXTERNAL] chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital> ________________________________ Damon, …and I think that is valid point that makes sense to me. The problem is that doing that means rec 3 needs to be amended to allow for that to happen. If we think that what you said below is the ‘right thing to do’ then cool, but how do we align rec 3 (and 4) with that? Cheers, CD Chris Disspain +44 7880 642456 [cid:image001.jpg@01DC6502.AE3BB200] On 4 Dec 2025, at 16:26, Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com>> wrote: Chris, I’ll let Jeff speak for himself but my point is that once people get into a UDRP the parties shouldn’t be locked into it if they both want to try to resolve the dispute in another way. That could include arbitration, “special” arbitration for IGO’s, etc. The UDRP is a voluntary and non-binding on courts and we should this be the rule too for IGO’s which will make the UDRP consistent with how it’s used in other more traditional contexts. Thanks, Damon J. Damon Ashcraft , P.C. O: 602.382.6389<tel:602.382.6389> | M: 602.510.1640<tel:602.510.1640> dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com> SNELL & WILMER swlaw.com<https://us.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.swlaw.com%2F&tenanti...> | LinkedIn<https://us.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompa...> One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004‑2556 Albuquerque | Boise | Dallas | Denver | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Los Cabos | Orange County | Palo Alto | Phoenix | Portland | Reno-Tahoe | Salt Lake City | San Diego | Seattle | Tucson | Washington, D.C. This email and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone. Please notify the sender by return email and delete this email as well as any attachments from your system. From: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 8:47 AM To: Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com>> Cc: Jay Chapman <jay@digimedia.com<mailto:jay@digimedia.com>>; BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>>; igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt] ICANN IGO CURATIVE RIGHTS - Links to current redlines and request for written rationales [EXTERNAL] chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital> ________________________________ Damon, Brian, Jay, Jeff, So, could we get clear what we are saying please? Is the point that we intended this new binding arbitration to be available at all times in which case rec 3 is deficient? Or is it something else? I thought we were setting up a ’special’ arbitration process just for IGO disputes and so I’m lost as to the relevance of Jeff’s point on consistency. This is a discrete, bespoke, process isn't it? If it is not then why did we write recommendation 3 specifically to deal with how this bespoke process should be organised? Cheers, CD Chris Disspain +44 7880 642456 <image001.jpg> On 4 Dec 2025, at 15:35, Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com>> wrote: I also agree with Jeff, Zak, and Brian. Chris, appreciate your input too of course. Thanks, Damon J. Damon Ashcraft , P.C. O: 602.382.6389<tel:602.382.6389> | M: 602.510.1640<tel:602.510.1640> dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com> SNELL & WILMER swlaw.com<https://us.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.swlaw.com%2F&tenanti...> | LinkedIn<https://us.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompa...> One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004‑2556 Albuquerque | Boise | Dallas | Denver | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Los Cabos | Orange County | Palo Alto | Phoenix | Portland | Reno-Tahoe | Salt Lake City | San Diego | Seattle | Tucson | Washington, D.C. This email and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone. Please notify the sender by return email and delete this email as well as any attachments from your system. From: Jay Chapman via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 8:16 AM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>> Cc: BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>>; igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto: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 [EXTERNAL] igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org> ________________________________ I agree with Jeff, Zak & Brian's position, but understand and appreciate Chris' stance. Sincerely, Jay Chapman On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 7:08 AM Chris Disspain via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto: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 <image001.jpg> On 4 Dec 2025, at 13:04, BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto: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<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 1:45 PM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>> Cc: igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Jeff@jjnsolutions.com> ________________________________ From: Chris Disspain via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 6:54 AM To: Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>> Cc: 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: [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 <image001.jpg> On 3 Dec 2025, at 15:30, Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto: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<mailto: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<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<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<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xIsvV0VhWTOQtxu2aEQmQCUYuA5GrTtwemROWizJaqo/edit?tab=t.0> URS: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azc-wp3mBXF404vZsEfr1l6mYyWGo3udlkWjqkgDEZQ/edit?tab=t.0<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<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<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> 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<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>
Damon, In my opinion, there is no need to alter Recommendation 3. It is clear on its face. It is clear that Rec. 3 applies to arbitration AFTER a decision. And while it is true there is no recommendation addressing what happens if it is filed before a decision, but after a UDRP is filed, that should not be interpreted as saying it is not allowed. All it says is that the WG was silent on the issue of what happens in that case (which again is ok, because the current UDRP is silent on what happens in the case a Registrant elects to file court case). Sincerely, Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC +1.202.549.5079 Jeff@jjnsolutions.com ________________________________ From: Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 11:46 AM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital> Cc: Jay Chapman <jay@digimedia.com>; BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org>; igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt] ICANN IGO CURATIVE RIGHTS - Links to current redlines and request for written rationales Thanks Chris. I think we should amend rec 3 then. We want to encourage the UDRP process and what we have outlined below does that. J. Damon Ashcraft , P.C. O: 602.382.6389<tel:602.382.6389> | M: 602.510.1640<tel:602.510.1640> dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com> SNELL & WILMER swlaw.com<https://us.content.exclaimer.net?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.swlaw.com%2F&tenantid...> | LinkedIn<https://us.content.exclaimer.net?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompan...> One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004‑2556 Albuquerque | Boise | Dallas | Denver | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Los Cabos | Orange County | Palo Alto | Phoenix | Portland | Reno-Tahoe | Salt Lake City | San Diego | Seattle | Tucson | Washington, D.C. This email and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone. Please notify the sender by return email and delete this email as well as any attachments from your system. From: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 9:44 AM To: Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com> Cc: Jay Chapman <jay@digimedia.com>; BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org>; igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt] ICANN IGO CURATIVE RIGHTS - Links to current redlines and request for written rationales [EXTERNAL] chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital> ________________________________ Damon, …and I think that is valid point that makes sense to me. The problem is that doing that means rec 3 needs to be amended to allow for that to happen. If we think that what you said below is the ‘right thing to do’ then cool, but how do we align rec 3 (and 4) with that? Cheers, CD Chris Disspain +44 7880 642456 [cid:image001.jpg@01DC6502.AE3BB200] On 4 Dec 2025, at 16:26, Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com>> wrote: Chris, I’ll let Jeff speak for himself but my point is that once people get into a UDRP the parties shouldn’t be locked into it if they both want to try to resolve the dispute in another way. That could include arbitration, “special” arbitration for IGO’s, etc. The UDRP is a voluntary and non-binding on courts and we should this be the rule too for IGO’s which will make the UDRP consistent with how it’s used in other more traditional contexts. Thanks, Damon J. Damon Ashcraft , P.C. O: 602.382.6389<tel:602.382.6389> | M: 602.510.1640<tel:602.510.1640> dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com> SNELL & WILMER swlaw.com<https://us.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.swlaw.com%2F&tenanti...> | LinkedIn<https://us.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompa...> One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004‑2556 Albuquerque | Boise | Dallas | Denver | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Los Cabos | Orange County | Palo Alto | Phoenix | Portland | Reno-Tahoe | Salt Lake City | San Diego | Seattle | Tucson | Washington, D.C. This email and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone. Please notify the sender by return email and delete this email as well as any attachments from your system. From: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 8:47 AM To: Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com>> Cc: Jay Chapman <jay@digimedia.com<mailto:jay@digimedia.com>>; BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>>; igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt] ICANN IGO CURATIVE RIGHTS - Links to current redlines and request for written rationales [EXTERNAL] chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital> ________________________________ Damon, Brian, Jay, Jeff, So, could we get clear what we are saying please? Is the point that we intended this new binding arbitration to be available at all times in which case rec 3 is deficient? Or is it something else? I thought we were setting up a ’special’ arbitration process just for IGO disputes and so I’m lost as to the relevance of Jeff’s point on consistency. This is a discrete, bespoke, process isn't it? If it is not then why did we write recommendation 3 specifically to deal with how this bespoke process should be organised? Cheers, CD Chris Disspain +44 7880 642456 <image001.jpg> On 4 Dec 2025, at 15:35, Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com>> wrote: I also agree with Jeff, Zak, and Brian. Chris, appreciate your input too of course. Thanks, Damon J. Damon Ashcraft , P.C. O: 602.382.6389<tel:602.382.6389> | M: 602.510.1640<tel:602.510.1640> dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com> SNELL & WILMER swlaw.com<https://us.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.swlaw.com%2F&tenanti...> | LinkedIn<https://us.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompa...> One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004‑2556 Albuquerque | Boise | Dallas | Denver | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Los Cabos | Orange County | Palo Alto | Phoenix | Portland | Reno-Tahoe | Salt Lake City | San Diego | Seattle | Tucson | Washington, D.C. This email and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone. Please notify the sender by return email and delete this email as well as any attachments from your system. From: Jay Chapman via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 8:16 AM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>> Cc: BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>>; igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto: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 [EXTERNAL] igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org> ________________________________ I agree with Jeff, Zak & Brian's position, but understand and appreciate Chris' stance. Sincerely, Jay Chapman On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 7:08 AM Chris Disspain via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto: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 <image001.jpg> On 4 Dec 2025, at 13:04, BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto: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<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 1:45 PM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>> Cc: igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Jeff@jjnsolutions.com> ________________________________ From: Chris Disspain via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 6:54 AM To: Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>> Cc: 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: [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 <image001.jpg> On 3 Dec 2025, at 15:30, Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto: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<mailto: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-SlTKVzpt... Current redlines: UDRP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OCUXfE4gn7-rPJDLLOz_FopVZfRwZl8zmct7VMgh... UDRP RULES: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xIsvV0VhWTOQtxu2aEQmQCUYuA5GrTtwemROWizJ... URS: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azc-wp3mBXF404vZsEfr1l6mYyWGo3udlkWjqkgD... URS RULES: https://docs.google.com/document/d/128O8E2EpVg3Rqfe3qtmG1XEITLuoe5Z2Sndw74iO... 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<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> 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<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 with you, Jeff. Sincerely, Jay Chapman On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 11:09 AM Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> wrote:
Damon,
In my opinion, there is no need to alter Recommendation 3. It is clear on its face. It is clear that Rec. 3 applies to arbitration AFTER a decision. And while it is true there is no recommendation addressing what happens if it is filed before a decision, but after a UDRP is filed, that should not be interpreted as saying it is not allowed. All it says is that the WG was silent on the issue of what happens in that case (which again is ok, because the current UDRP is silent on what happens in the case a Registrant elects to file court case).
Sincerely,
Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC +1.202.549.5079 Jeff@jjnsolutions.com ------------------------------ *From:* Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com> *Sent:* Thursday, December 4, 2025 11:46 AM *To:* Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital> *Cc:* Jay Chapman <jay@digimedia.com>; BECKHAM Brian < brian.beckham@wipo.int>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org>; igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org < igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt] ICANN IGO CURATIVE RIGHTS - Links to current redlines and request for written rationales
Thanks Chris. I think we should amend rec 3 then. We want to encourage the UDRP process and what we have outlined below does that.
*J. Damon Ashcraft*
*, P.C.*
********
*O: *
*602.382.6389 <602.382.6389>*
|
*M: *
*602.510.1640 <602.510.1640>*
*dashcraft@swlaw.com <dashcraft@swlaw.com>*
*SNELL*
*& WILMER*
*swlaw.com <https://us.content.exclaimer.net?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.swlaw.com%2F&tenantid=E7br4byREe62YAAiSCOEEg&templateid=167e554212f6ee11aaf26045bdd55b16&excomponentid=Di8zpC3Ad-ClS-oXf_Vikl68sfuv1FMGmpoopY-FooI&excomponenttype=Link&signature=ECsctdOBSQFMo5BLYX3IsR0rMETsZxObDxIr0m9bUrJYw3aWKbF9tEBrtMyChA8srMhnc8ZOq4GGBQwPWmx2I4UFkC7p-OeLPMAbjgUQ_XHPJH7em-4WEIGwvM9cKLbObE-ZiVYTVByvFNGH2O8iGLyhGCrXSFEy_GWYghqN2iyxdp7qoeA9acZpxi-8mIKtRQZEu9SjaKgqYuIeEwQDu_xu0Smrjcgf3gC2tb-6cwBdxlLliZGsuqHlhDeo5kjD4EYPrzKmFlRvJtSXy6Ho8dvDpGH7dkG9btex_U47mIz_bnUGrIizv341sh-lNc27qWnhCmMo_J8hNC7ze1Zplw&v=1>* | *LinkedIn <https://us.content.exclaimer.net?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompany%2Fsnell-%26-wilmer&tenantid=E7br4byREe62YAAiSCOEEg&templateid=167e554212f6ee11aaf26045bdd55b16&excomponentid=3YRCW3LaEsbIKDOc6BQ0LazqxwW1DULjd-Gs6_jyMgs&excomponenttype=Link&signature=AyTpUQQLVLvMDoTJTJFpHuL9ia6IvqLmmDELoqUvSkqSrKsYrv7xkGsMb785yHG-pFeQzHthFpXOePbV8Xuse9u1nCTN-BXeaWZl5w_kLKF0wIvBGWxwjidIgueThwATGWtdzZg0AsxQ89GtjHgg459ND9sX-c4nd93AYbCLKF-4G5EkQ2946kuzO-5nmcwRKoIjYd_tQgVuEo4dg859oddJelP3ENIxH_GSAv-DXIE8iAITSqJq59OTCGRKVM7fpo0gCajc8QCVxCCvPIFSdIgNMUArwLbKQfuS20NePxZLsMsYzsec8DB1bDWS-JxSNNF9xQbKBQzQYqD6OKePSg&v=1>*
One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004‑2556
Albuquerque *|* Boise *|* Dallas *|* Denver *|* Las Vegas *|* Los Angeles *|* Los Cabos *|* Orange County *|* Palo Alto *|* Phoenix *|* Portland *|* Reno-Tahoe *|* Salt Lake City *|* San Diego *|* Seattle *|* Tucson *|* Washington, D.C.
This email and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone. Please notify the sender by return email and delete this email as well as any attachments from your system.
*From:* Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital> *Sent:* Thursday, December 4, 2025 9:44 AM *To:* Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com> *Cc:* Jay Chapman <jay@digimedia.com>; BECKHAM Brian < brian.beckham@wipo.int>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org>; igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt] ICANN IGO CURATIVE RIGHTS - Links to current redlines and request for written rationales
*[EXTERNAL] **chris.disspain@identity.digital <chris.disspain@identity.digital>*
------------------------------
Damon,
…and I think that is valid point that makes sense to me. The problem is that doing that means rec 3 needs to be amended to allow for that to happen. If we think that what you said below is the ‘right thing to do’ then cool, but how do we align rec 3 (and 4) with that?
Cheers,
CD
Chris Disspain
+44 7880 642456
On 4 Dec 2025, at 16:26, Ashcraft, Damon <*dashcraft@swlaw.com <dashcraft@swlaw.com>*> wrote:
Chris,
I’ll let Jeff speak for himself but my point is that once people get into a UDRP the parties shouldn’t be locked into it if they both want to try to resolve the dispute in another way. That could include arbitration, “special” arbitration for IGO’s, etc. The UDRP is a voluntary and non-binding on courts and we should this be the rule too for IGO’s which will make the UDRP consistent with how it’s used in other more traditional contexts.
Thanks, Damon
*J. Damon Ashcraft*
*, P.C.*
********
*O: *
*602.382.6389 <602.382.6389>*
|
*M: *
*602.510.1640 <602.510.1640>*
*dashcraft@swlaw.com <dashcraft@swlaw.com>*
*SNELL*
*& WILMER*
*swlaw.com <https://us.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.swlaw.com%2F&tenantid=E7br4byREe62YAAiSCOEEg&templateid=167e554212f6ee11aaf26045bdd55b16&excomponentid=Di8zpC3Ad-ClS-oXf_Vikl68sfuv1FMGmpoopY-FooI&excomponenttype=Link&signature=ECsctdOBSQFMo5BLYX3IsR0rMETsZxObDxIr0m9bUrJYw3aWKbF9tEBrtMyChA8srMhnc8ZOq4GGBQwPWmx2I4UFkC7p-OeLPMAbjgUQ_XHPJH7em-4WEIGwvM9cKLbObE-ZiVYTVByvFNGH2O8iGLyhGCrXSFEy_GWYghqN2iyxdp7qoeA9acZpxi-8mIKtRQZEu9SjaKgqYuIeEwQDu_xu0Smrjcgf3gC2tb-6cwBdxlLliZGsuqHlhDeo5kjD4EYPrzKmFlRvJtSXy6Ho8dvDpGH7dkG9btex_U47mIz_bnUGrIizv341sh-lNc27qWnhCmMo_J8hNC7ze1Zplw&v=1>* | *LinkedIn <https://us.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompany%2Fsnell-%26-wilmer&tenantid=E7br4byREe62YAAiSCOEEg&templateid=167e554212f6ee11aaf26045bdd55b16&excomponentid=3YRCW3LaEsbIKDOc6BQ0LazqxwW1DULjd-Gs6_jyMgs&excomponenttype=Link&signature=AyTpUQQLVLvMDoTJTJFpHuL9ia6IvqLmmDELoqUvSkqSrKsYrv7xkGsMb785yHG-pFeQzHthFpXOePbV8Xuse9u1nCTN-BXeaWZl5w_kLKF0wIvBGWxwjidIgueThwATGWtdzZg0AsxQ89GtjHgg459ND9sX-c4nd93AYbCLKF-4G5EkQ2946kuzO-5nmcwRKoIjYd_tQgVuEo4dg859oddJelP3ENIxH_GSAv-DXIE8iAITSqJq59OTCGRKVM7fpo0gCajc8QCVxCCvPIFSdIgNMUArwLbKQfuS20NePxZLsMsYzsec8DB1bDWS-JxSNNF9xQbKBQzQYqD6OKePSg&v=1>*
One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004‑2556
Albuquerque *|* Boise *|* Dallas *|* Denver *|* Las Vegas *|* Los Angeles *|* Los Cabos *|* Orange County *|* Palo Alto *|* Phoenix *|* Portland *|* Reno-Tahoe *|* Salt Lake City *|* San Diego *|* Seattle *|* Tucson *|* Washington, D.C.
This email and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone. Please notify the sender by return email and delete this email as well as any attachments from your system.
*From:* Chris Disspain <*chris.disspain@identity.digital <chris.disspain@identity.digital>*> *Sent:* Thursday, December 4, 2025 8:47 AM *To:* Ashcraft, Damon <*dashcraft@swlaw.com <dashcraft@swlaw.com>*> *Cc:* Jay Chapman <*jay@digimedia.com <jay@digimedia.com>*>; BECKHAM Brian <*brian.beckham@wipo.int <brian.beckham@wipo.int>*>; Jeff Neuman <*jeff@jjnsolutions.com <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>*>; Peter Eakin <*peter.eakin@icann.org <peter.eakin@icann.org>*>; *igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>* *Subject:* Re: [Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt] ICANN IGO CURATIVE RIGHTS - Links to current redlines and request for written rationales
*[EXTERNAL] **chris.disspain@identity.digital <chris.disspain@identity.digital>*
------------------------------
Damon, Brian, Jay, Jeff,
So, could we get clear what we are saying please?
Is the point that we intended this new binding arbitration to be available at all times in which case rec 3 is deficient?
Or is it something else?
I thought we were setting up a ’special’ arbitration process just for IGO disputes and so I’m lost as to the relevance of Jeff’s point on consistency. This is a discrete, bespoke, process isn't it? If it is not then why did we write recommendation 3 specifically to deal with how this bespoke process should be organised?
Cheers,
CD
Chris Disspain
+44 7880 642456
<image001.jpg>
On 4 Dec 2025, at 15:35, Ashcraft, Damon <*dashcraft@swlaw.com <dashcraft@swlaw.com>*> wrote:
I also agree with Jeff, Zak, and Brian. Chris, appreciate your input too of course.
Thanks, Damon
*J. Damon Ashcraft*
*, P.C.*
********
*O: *
*602.382.6389 <602.382.6389>*
|
*M: *
*602.510.1640 <602.510.1640>*
*dashcraft@swlaw.com <dashcraft@swlaw.com>*
*SNELL*
*& WILMER*
*swlaw.com <https://us.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.swlaw.com%2F&tenantid=E7br4byREe62YAAiSCOEEg&templateid=167e554212f6ee11aaf26045bdd55b16&excomponentid=Di8zpC3Ad-ClS-oXf_Vikl68sfuv1FMGmpoopY-FooI&excomponenttype=Link&signature=ECsctdOBSQFMo5BLYX3IsR0rMETsZxObDxIr0m9bUrJYw3aWKbF9tEBrtMyChA8srMhnc8ZOq4GGBQwPWmx2I4UFkC7p-OeLPMAbjgUQ_XHPJH7em-4WEIGwvM9cKLbObE-ZiVYTVByvFNGH2O8iGLyhGCrXSFEy_GWYghqN2iyxdp7qoeA9acZpxi-8mIKtRQZEu9SjaKgqYuIeEwQDu_xu0Smrjcgf3gC2tb-6cwBdxlLliZGsuqHlhDeo5kjD4EYPrzKmFlRvJtSXy6Ho8dvDpGH7dkG9btex_U47mIz_bnUGrIizv341sh-lNc27qWnhCmMo_J8hNC7ze1Zplw&v=1>* | *LinkedIn <https://us.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompany%2Fsnell-%26-wilmer&tenantid=E7br4byREe62YAAiSCOEEg&templateid=167e554212f6ee11aaf26045bdd55b16&excomponentid=3YRCW3LaEsbIKDOc6BQ0LazqxwW1DULjd-Gs6_jyMgs&excomponenttype=Link&signature=AyTpUQQLVLvMDoTJTJFpHuL9ia6IvqLmmDELoqUvSkqSrKsYrv7xkGsMb785yHG-pFeQzHthFpXOePbV8Xuse9u1nCTN-BXeaWZl5w_kLKF0wIvBGWxwjidIgueThwATGWtdzZg0AsxQ89GtjHgg459ND9sX-c4nd93AYbCLKF-4G5EkQ2946kuzO-5nmcwRKoIjYd_tQgVuEo4dg859oddJelP3ENIxH_GSAv-DXIE8iAITSqJq59OTCGRKVM7fpo0gCajc8QCVxCCvPIFSdIgNMUArwLbKQfuS20NePxZLsMsYzsec8DB1bDWS-JxSNNF9xQbKBQzQYqD6OKePSg&v=1>*
One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004‑2556
Albuquerque *|* Boise *|* Dallas *|* Denver *|* Las Vegas *|* Los Angeles *|* Los Cabos *|* Orange County *|* Palo Alto *|* Phoenix *|* Portland *|* Reno-Tahoe *|* Salt Lake City *|* San Diego *|* Seattle *|* Tucson *|* Washington, D.C.
This email and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone. Please notify the sender by return email and delete this email as well as any attachments from your system.
*From:* Jay Chapman via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <*igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>*> *Sent:* Thursday, December 4, 2025 8:16 AM *To:* Chris Disspain <*chris.disspain@identity.digital <chris.disspain@identity.digital>*> *Cc:* BECKHAM Brian <*brian.beckham@wipo.int <brian.beckham@wipo.int>*>; Jeff Neuman <*jeff@jjnsolutions.com <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>*>; Peter Eakin <*peter.eakin@icann.org <peter.eakin@icann.org>*>; *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
*[EXTERNAL] **igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>*
------------------------------
I agree with Jeff, Zak & Brian's position, but understand and appreciate Chris' stance.
Sincerely,
Jay Chapman
On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 7:08 AM Chris Disspain via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <*igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org <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
<image001.jpg>
On 4 Dec 2025, at 13:04, BECKHAM Brian <*brian.beckham@wipo.int <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 <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>*> *Sent:* Thursday, December 4, 2025 1:45 PM *To:* Chris Disspain <*chris.disspain@identity.digital <chris.disspain@identity.digital>*>; Peter Eakin <*peter.eakin@icann.org <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
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 <Jeff@jjnsolutions.com>* ------------------------------
*From:* Chris Disspain via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <*igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>*> *Sent:* Thursday, December 4, 2025 6:54 AM *To:* Peter Eakin <*peter.eakin@icann.org <peter.eakin@icann.org>*> *Cc:* *igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>* <*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
<image001.jpg>
On 3 Dec 2025, at 15:30, Chris Disspain <*chris.disspain@identity.digital <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 <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-SlTKVzpt... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CDkX-FNmNMncwVS6VBoKL2aDnKSmOrQ-SlTKVzptrZg/edit?tab=t.0>*
*Current redlines*:
UDRP: *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OCUXfE4gn7-rPJDLLOz_FopVZfRwZl8zmct7VMgh... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OCUXfE4gn7-rPJDLLOz_FopVZfRwZl8zmct7VMghw8o/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.i8soj2yx4de>*
UDRP RULES: *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xIsvV0VhWTOQtxu2aEQmQCUYuA5GrTtwemROWizJ... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xIsvV0VhWTOQtxu2aEQmQCUYuA5GrTtwemROWizJaqo/edit?tab=t.0>*
URS: *https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azc-wp3mBXF404vZsEfr1l6mYyWGo3udlkWjqkgD... <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azc-wp3mBXF404vZsEfr1l6mYyWGo3udlkWjqkgDEZQ/edit?tab=t.0>*
URS RULES: *https://docs.google.com/document/d/128O8E2EpVg3Rqfe3qtmG1XEITLuoe5Z2Sndw74iO... <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 <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-leave@icann.org>*
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 <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-leave@icann.org>*
Jeff, Fair point but why not add a quick explanatory statement to rec 3 to clarify what (I think) the agreed upon intent here? Thanks, Damon J. Damon Ashcraft , P.C. O: 602.382.6389<tel:602.382.6389> | M: 602.510.1640<tel:602.510.1640> dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com> SNELL & WILMER swlaw.com<https://us.content.exclaimer.net?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.swlaw.com%2F&tenantid...> | LinkedIn<https://us.content.exclaimer.net?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompan...> One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004‑2556 Albuquerque | Boise | Dallas | Denver | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Los Cabos | Orange County | Palo Alto | Phoenix | Portland | Reno-Tahoe | Salt Lake City | San Diego | Seattle | Tucson | Washington, D.C. This email and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone. Please notify the sender by return email and delete this email as well as any attachments from your system. From: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 10:09 AM To: Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com>; Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital> Cc: Jay Chapman <jay@digimedia.com>; BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org>; igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org Subject: Re: [Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt] ICANN IGO CURATIVE RIGHTS - Links to current redlines and request for written rationales [EXTERNAL] jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> ________________________________ Damon, In my opinion, there is no need to alter Recommendation 3. It is clear on its face. It is clear that Rec. 3 applies to arbitration AFTER a decision. And while it is true there is no recommendation addressing what happens if it is filed before a decision, but after a UDRP is filed, that should not be interpreted as saying it is not allowed. All it says is that the WG was silent on the issue of what happens in that case (which again is ok, because the current UDRP is silent on what happens in the case a Registrant elects to file court case). Sincerely, Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC +1.202.549.5079 Jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:Jeff@jjnsolutions.com> ________________________________ From: Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 11:46 AM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>> Cc: Jay Chapman <jay@digimedia.com<mailto:jay@digimedia.com>>; BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>>; 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: RE: [Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt] ICANN IGO CURATIVE RIGHTS - Links to current redlines and request for written rationales Thanks Chris. I think we should amend rec 3 then. We want to encourage the UDRP process and what we have outlined below does that. J. Damon Ashcraft , P.C. O: 602.382.6389<tel:602.382.6389> | M: 602.510.1640<tel:602.510.1640> dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com> SNELL & WILMER swlaw.com<https://us.content.exclaimer.net?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.swlaw.com%2F&tenantid...> | LinkedIn<https://us.content.exclaimer.net?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompan...> One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004‑2556 Albuquerque | Boise | Dallas | Denver | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Los Cabos | Orange County | Palo Alto | Phoenix | Portland | Reno-Tahoe | Salt Lake City | San Diego | Seattle | Tucson | Washington, D.C. This email and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone. Please notify the sender by return email and delete this email as well as any attachments from your system. From: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 9:44 AM To: Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com>> Cc: Jay Chapman <jay@digimedia.com<mailto:jay@digimedia.com>>; BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>>; igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt] ICANN IGO CURATIVE RIGHTS - Links to current redlines and request for written rationales [EXTERNAL] chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital> ________________________________ Damon, …and I think that is valid point that makes sense to me. The problem is that doing that means rec 3 needs to be amended to allow for that to happen. If we think that what you said below is the ‘right thing to do’ then cool, but how do we align rec 3 (and 4) with that? Cheers, CD Chris Disspain +44 7880 642456 [cid:image001.jpg@01DC6506.A9CEBE20] On 4 Dec 2025, at 16:26, Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com>> wrote: Chris, I’ll let Jeff speak for himself but my point is that once people get into a UDRP the parties shouldn’t be locked into it if they both want to try to resolve the dispute in another way. That could include arbitration, “special” arbitration for IGO’s, etc. The UDRP is a voluntary and non-binding on courts and we should this be the rule too for IGO’s which will make the UDRP consistent with how it’s used in other more traditional contexts. Thanks, Damon J. Damon Ashcraft , P.C. O: 602.382.6389<tel:602.382.6389> | M: 602.510.1640<tel:602.510.1640> dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com> SNELL & WILMER swlaw.com<https://us.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.swlaw.com%2F&tenanti...> | LinkedIn<https://us.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompa...> One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004‑2556 Albuquerque | Boise | Dallas | Denver | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Los Cabos | Orange County | Palo Alto | Phoenix | Portland | Reno-Tahoe | Salt Lake City | San Diego | Seattle | Tucson | Washington, D.C. This email and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone. Please notify the sender by return email and delete this email as well as any attachments from your system. From: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 8:47 AM To: Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com>> Cc: Jay Chapman <jay@digimedia.com<mailto:jay@digimedia.com>>; BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>>; igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt] ICANN IGO CURATIVE RIGHTS - Links to current redlines and request for written rationales [EXTERNAL] chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital> ________________________________ Damon, Brian, Jay, Jeff, So, could we get clear what we are saying please? Is the point that we intended this new binding arbitration to be available at all times in which case rec 3 is deficient? Or is it something else? I thought we were setting up a ’special’ arbitration process just for IGO disputes and so I’m lost as to the relevance of Jeff’s point on consistency. This is a discrete, bespoke, process isn't it? If it is not then why did we write recommendation 3 specifically to deal with how this bespoke process should be organised? Cheers, CD Chris Disspain +44 7880 642456 <image001.jpg> On 4 Dec 2025, at 15:35, Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com>> wrote: I also agree with Jeff, Zak, and Brian. Chris, appreciate your input too of course. Thanks, Damon J. Damon Ashcraft , P.C. O: 602.382.6389<tel:602.382.6389> | M: 602.510.1640<tel:602.510.1640> dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com> SNELL & WILMER swlaw.com<https://us.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.swlaw.com%2F&tenanti...> | LinkedIn<https://us.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompa...> One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004‑2556 Albuquerque | Boise | Dallas | Denver | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Los Cabos | Orange County | Palo Alto | Phoenix | Portland | Reno-Tahoe | Salt Lake City | San Diego | Seattle | Tucson | Washington, D.C. This email and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone. Please notify the sender by return email and delete this email as well as any attachments from your system. From: Jay Chapman via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 8:16 AM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>> Cc: BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>>; igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto: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 [EXTERNAL] igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org> ________________________________ I agree with Jeff, Zak & Brian's position, but understand and appreciate Chris' stance. Sincerely, Jay Chapman On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 7:08 AM Chris Disspain via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto: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 <image001.jpg> On 4 Dec 2025, at 13:04, BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto: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<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 1:45 PM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>> Cc: igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Jeff@jjnsolutions.com> ________________________________ From: Chris Disspain via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 6:54 AM To: Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>> Cc: 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: [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 <image001.jpg> On 3 Dec 2025, at 15:30, Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto: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<mailto: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<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<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<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xIsvV0VhWTOQtxu2aEQmQCUYuA5GrTtwemROWizJaqo/edit?tab=t.0> URS: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azc-wp3mBXF404vZsEfr1l6mYyWGo3udlkWjqkgDEZQ/edit?tab=t.0<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<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<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> 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<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>
Chris, I think we are clear and I do not see Recommendation 3 as being inconsistent with what we are saying. First, all Arbitrations are by definition bespoke, whether the rights is created through a contract (like here) or whether it is agreed to by the parties. And I believe the policy WG PDP went out of its way to make it resemble what happens today under the UDRP if there were a mutual jurisdiction clause and the registrant went to Court. Only in this case, instead of going to court, they go to arbitration. Recommendation 3 deals solely with arbitrations that are AFTER a UDRP decision is published. That is what the title says (Arbitral Review Following a UDRP Decision). The right for parties to go to arbitration prior to a decision is in no way prohibited prior to a decision in either our policy or under the current UDRP for that matter. In fact, there is no Recommendation in the Final Report that addresses this. And just like the current UDRP (and the way it is treated), where there are no policies or rules governing what happens if a court case is filed, there is no policy or rules from the ePDP Final Report that directly address this situation. And that is fine. What will happen is that Providers and Panels will fill in the gaps just as it has with the current UDRP. In sum, Recommendation 3 is in no way inconsistent with the notion of the one or both parties filing/agreeing to arbitration once the UDRP is filed by the IGO. What am I missing? Sincerely, Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC +1.202.549.5079 Jeff@jjnsolutions.com ________________________________ From: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 10:47 AM To: Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com> Cc: Jay Chapman <jay@digimedia.com>; BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int>; Jeff Neuman <Jeff@JJNSolutions.com>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org>; igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt] ICANN IGO CURATIVE RIGHTS - Links to current redlines and request for written rationales Damon, Brian, Jay, Jeff, So, could we get clear what we are saying please? Is the point that we intended this new binding arbitration to be available at all times in which case rec 3 is deficient? Or is it something else? I thought we were setting up a ’special’ arbitration process just for IGO disputes and so I’m lost as to the relevance of Jeff’s point on consistency. This is a discrete, bespoke, process isn't it? If it is not then why did we write recommendation 3 specifically to deal with how this bespoke process should be organised? Cheers, CD Chris Disspain +44 7880 642456 [AIorK4xWevLg7DM8FNJKXERnsV06zXuazaQVoJFTyAE5wjxp9tzIfz3Z3HM-Zvrkyy72U8Iwybs6ZGY.jpeg] On 4 Dec 2025, at 15:35, Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft@swlaw.com> wrote: I also agree with Jeff, Zak, and Brian. Chris, appreciate your input too of course. Thanks, Damon J. Damon Ashcraft , P.C. O: 602.382.6389<tel:602.382.6389> | M: 602.510.1640<tel:602.510.1640> dashcraft@swlaw.com<mailto:dashcraft@swlaw.com> SNELL & WILMER swlaw.com<https://us.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.swlaw.com%2F&tenanti...> | LinkedIn<https://us.content.exclaimer.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompa...> One East Washington Street | Suite 2700 | Phoenix, AZ 85004‑2556 Albuquerque | Boise | Dallas | Denver | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | Los Cabos | Orange County | Palo Alto | Phoenix | Portland | Reno-Tahoe | Salt Lake City | San Diego | Seattle | Tucson | Washington, D.C. This email and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege. If you have received this message in error, please do not disclose the contents to anyone. Please notify the sender by return email and delete this email as well as any attachments from your system. From: Jay Chapman via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 8:16 AM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>> Cc: BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>; Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com>>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>>; igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto: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 [EXTERNAL] igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org> ________________________________ I agree with Jeff, Zak & Brian's position, but understand and appreciate Chris' stance. Sincerely, Jay Chapman On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 7:08 AM Chris Disspain via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto: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 <image001.jpg> On 4 Dec 2025, at 13:04, BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto: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<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 1:45 PM To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto:chris.disspain@identity.digital>>; Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>> Cc: igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Jeff@jjnsolutions.com> ________________________________ From: Chris Disspain via Igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt <igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org<mailto:igo-ingo-curative-rights-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 6:54 AM To: Peter Eakin <peter.eakin@icann.org<mailto:peter.eakin@icann.org>> Cc: 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: [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 <image001.jpg> On 3 Dec 2025, at 15:30, Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital<mailto: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<mailto: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-SlTKVzpt... Current redlines: UDRP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OCUXfE4gn7-rPJDLLOz_FopVZfRwZl8zmct7VMgh... UDRP RULES: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xIsvV0VhWTOQtxu2aEQmQCUYuA5GrTtwemROWizJ... URS: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1azc-wp3mBXF404vZsEfr1l6mYyWGo3udlkWjqkgD... URS RULES: https://docs.google.com/document/d/128O8E2EpVg3Rqfe3qtmG1XEITLuoe5Z2Sndw74iO... 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<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> 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<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>
participants (6)
-
Ashcraft, Damon -
BECKHAM Brian -
Chris Disspain -
Jay Chapman -
Jeff Neuman -
Peter Eakin