RE: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP
Dear all, In an effort to provide some additional clarity, I've prepared a redline version, comparing the IPC draft (expanded with the Rules of Procedure from the staff draft) versus the UDRP. Hope it is somewhat helpful. Best regards Olof _____ From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: den 29 november 2007 22:55 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>> Attachment:
IPC draft IGO DRP vs UDRP.DOC
|