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

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Sarah,

 

I share your concerns.   In fact this type of rigid "contract" language is
what stalled individual ccTLD participation within the ICANN process for so
long. It was only after ICANN adopted an accountability framework document
that more participation/recognition occurred.

 

I think Phil's concerns can be address without the hard coded "contract"
language. Having dealt with IGOs over the past several years I can tell you
that getting them to sign "contracts" can be a complicated process.
Therefore making WIPO sign a UDRP provider contract is likely to run into
some complications that would likely draw the support/empathy of the GAC. Do
we really want to pick that fight? 

 

Having dealt with WIPO during the past 11 years ago (remember that first
UDRP meeting at Georgetown Sarah/Marilyn - seems almost like yesterday) I
think as a trustee of this process WIPO would be in agreement about ensuring
some  uniformity of the rules. So let's figure how to make them part of the
solution, instead of making them part of the problem.

 

Just my two cents.

 

Best regards,

 

Michael 

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Deutsch, Sarah B
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 8:50 AM
To: 'Philip Sheppard'; 'Phil Corwin'; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft BC Position on Establishing
Standard Contract for UDRP Providers

 

My concern is that by includng the words "contract" this will be misread by
ICANN as a green light to go forward with regulation having nothing to do
with these parties' qualifications even if the idea of an "other mechanism"
is also included as an option.  

 

The following language addresses my concern but keeps the same meaning Phil
originally intended:

 

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 with all accredited
providers a standard mechanism for establishing uniform rules and procedures
and flexible means of delineating and enforcing arbitration provider
responsibilities.

 

In the rest of the document, I'd recommend replacing "contact" with
"standard mechanism."  


Thanks,


Sarah



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

 

 

  _____  

From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@xxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 3:29 AM
To: 'Phil Corwin'; Deutsch, Sarah B; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft BC Position on Establishing
Standard Contract for UDRP Providers

I share Sarah's concern but agree with Phil that our current language 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)

Philip