RE: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Chuck,
 
Given David's participation in the Joint Working Group on 2003, I've
assumed he's familiar with the underlying immunity issue that motivates
the arbitration proposal.  (For those Councilors who may not have the
institutional knowledge of the IGO issue, it's discussed in pages 12-14
of the Issues Report.)  I, for one, would welcome alternative
suggestions from David - or anyone for that matter - that take into
account the  immunity-driven limitations.
 
K
 
 


________________________________

        From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:42 PM
        To: Rosette, Kristina; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP
        
        
        To get some discussion going, here's some feedback received from
David Maher in the RyC, sent with David's permission.
         
        "This proposal still has the fundamental flaw that it requires
mandatory ARBITRATION. It is an attempt to make ICANN a global
legislative body outside the jurisdiction of national courts. The
existing UDRP provides for a mandatory ADMINISTRATIVE proceeding and has
the following escape clause (4(k)):
        
        

                Availability of Court Proceedings. The mandatory
administrative proceeding requirements set forth in Paragraph 4
<BLOCKED::#4>  shall not prevent either you or the complainant from
submitting the dispute to a court of competent jurisdiction for
independent resolution before such mandatory administrative proceeding
is commenced or after such proceeding is concluded. 
                
                

        If ICANN can do this, it can make law on any other subject. I
don't think we, as registries, want to subject ourselves to mandatory
arbitration (except as provided in contracts we have signed) on any
subject that the GNSO comes up with."
         
        Chuck Gomes
         
        "This message is intended for the use of the individual or
entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify
sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
         


________________________________

                From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
                Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 10:15 PM
                To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                Subject: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP
                
                

                All, 

                Attached please find the IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP,
which was approved by the IPC at its meeting this morning.  Attached
also for reference is a redline against the IGO DRP that was contained
in the 28 September 2007 staff report.

                The IPC believes that its proposed revised IGO DRP
remedies the aspects of the original IGO DRP that were previously
identified as being of concern.  

                The IPC proposed revised IGO DRP does not address - and
was not intended to address - the process by which an IGO DRP would
become applicable to existing gTLDs.   Once (or if) it does become
applicable to existing gTLDs, the proposed changes reflect a mechanism
that is believed to treat existing gTLD registrants fairly.

                Kristina 



                <<11282007 IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP.DOC>> <<Redline
IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP against Original.DOC>>