ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP



I share David's concerns about this proposal. (Without going into the specific concerns on the proposal) we should not circumvent the treaty making process and international legal institutions - which is the correct forum to take such a proposal to. ICANN has no authority to create special rights for IGOs vis-a-vis other legal rights to use domain names.

Robin


Gomes, Chuck wrote:

David is very familiar with the underlying immunity issues and believes that the DRP approach is a way for the IGOs to avoid the treaty route. Here are his words, "This conflict can be reconciled by the traditional means of treaties. I understand that the impetus for this proposal is to do an end run around the treaty process." 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:* Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx]
    *Sent:* Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:55 PM
    *To:* Gomes, Chuck; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    *Subject:* RE: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP

    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>>





<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>