[bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft BC Position on Establishing Standard Contract for UDRP Providers

[Phil Corwin <pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I regard Sarah's suggested amendments as "friendly" and want to give them full 
review in the morning.



However, I'm somewhat reluctant to excise any reference to "contracts" at this 
early stage (when we are just trying to get ICANN's attention and get a 
discussion initiated) because contracts are the standard means by which ICANN 
establishes a continuing relationship with accredited parties. I don't think 
such a contract necessarily extinguishes independence -- it doesn't seem to 
have constrained registries or registrars all that much, except when they are 
in egregious breach. One might even contend that the lack of contract gives 
ICANN more potential influence, since it is not bound by any standard for 
cancelling a UDRP provider's accreditation.



In any event, the present language does not insist on contracts but is flexible 
--


The Business Constituency (BC) cannot support approval of this or any other 
UDRP accreditation application at this time on the grounds that no new UDRP 
providers should be accredited until ICANN implements a standard contract with 
all accredited providers or develops some other mechanism for establishing 
uniform rules and procedures and flexible means of delineating and enforcing 
arbitration provider responsibilities. (emphasis added)




As for the approval process for accrediting new UDRP providers, it's good as 
far as it goes (and to the extent it is rigorous) but it's a one-time event and 
so far as I am aware there is no regular oversight of UDRP providers once 
accreditation is granted.



But, again, I want to review all her suggested changes in the clear light of 
morning.







Philip S. Corwin
Partner
Butera & Andrews
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004

202-347-6875 (office)

202-347-6876 (fax)

202-255-6172 (cell)

"Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey

________________________________
From: Deutsch, Sarah B [sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 6:17 PM
To: Phil Corwin; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Revised Draft BC Position on Establishing Standard Contract for 
UDRP Providers


All,

I just spoke to Phil about this.  I don't disagree with the premise that UDRP 
providers should be subject to uniform standards especially with respect to 
experience, expertise, quality, etc, but I have serious concerns with our BC 
document calling for a "contract" with ICANN since I believe it's important 
that dispute resolution providers maintain their independence from ICANN and 
not be subject to regulation from ICANN.    My attached edits primarily address 
this point.

Note today that providers are approved by ICANN with the Approval Process 
information located at 
http://www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/provider-approval-process.htm

I believe it would be useful to do a deeper dive into what we'd like to see 
beefed up in the approval process perhaps using the form above as a start.

Sarah


Sarah B. Deutsch
Vice President & Associate General Counsel
Verizon Communications
Phone: 703-351-3044
Fax: 703-351-3670


________________________________
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Phil Corwin
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 6:16 PM
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bc-gnso] Revised Draft BC Position on Establishing Standard Contract 
for UDRP Providers
Importance: High


Last week our Chair, Marilyn Cade, circulated a marked up version of the draft 
position statement on this issue that was originally drafted by me and 
subsequently edited by Mike Rodenbaugh. This morning, Berry Cobb suggested that 
the position statement should be cross-reference one of the pending 
recommendations of the RAPWG.



I regards these suggestions as "friendly amendments" and have revised the draft 
statement to take account of them. Two versions of an updated draft are 
attached -- one is a redline markup of what Marilyn forwarded, and the other is 
a clean version of same.



Marilyn also inquired whether there would be a cut off date at which the draft 
would be locked down for final consideration by BC members. As the comment must 
be filed by Thursday, October 28, iI would suggest that we lock down the draft 
no later than this Thursday or Friday, if that is in compliance with BC 
administrative rules.



Thanks again to all who have voiced support for this position staement and have 
suggested improvements.







Philip S. Corwin
Partner
Butera & Andrews
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004

202-347-6875 (office)

202-347-6876 (fax)

202-255-6172 (cell)

"Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey