RE: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike,

In your proposal would the appeal arbitration be binding?

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." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 7:01 PM
> To: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Maher, David
> Subject: RE: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP
> 
> 
> Personally, I also do not support substantively expanding the 
> UDRP in any way for NGOs, they should have to meet the same 
> 3-factor test to prevail as would any other complaining party.  
> 
> But I could support a special arbitration procedure for NGO's 
> to dispute an adverse UDRP decision, and a carveout from the 
> current rules so they would not have to submit to 
> jurisdiction of a foreign court for such an appeal, as they 
> would today by filing a UDRP complaint.  I had always 
> understood that was the NGO's primary concern with proceeding 
> under the UDRP.  I think such an arbitration process could be 
> run by the existing UDRP providers, and could be as simple as 
> a second review by a different panelist (even at a different 
> provider), at the NGO's cost.  This essentially would give 
> them two chances at ADR, rather than having to appeal to a court.
> 
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 2:55 PM
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: David W. Maher
> Subject: 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>>
> >
> 
>