RE: [council] IPC Proposed Revised IGO DRP

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

Thanks very much for the redline, Olof.  
 
The IPC had focused only on the DRP, not the Rules.  I can only speak
personally, but I would like to see "reverse domain hijacking" retained
in the Rules.  An IGO is just as capable as engaging in RDH as any other
complainant, and a Panel should be free to make that determination. 
 
I will raise the issue with the IPC membership, and will get back to the
list as soon as practicable.
 
Kristina 
 
 


________________________________

        From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 6:24 AM
        To: Rosette, Kristina; 'Gomes, Chuck'; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: 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>>