[bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft #3 of UDRP Provider Standard Mechanisms Position Paper

[Kladouras Konstantinos <kkladouras@xxxxxx>]

Dear BC members,

We are carefully monitoring on-line discussions regarding the draft BC position 
on UDRP arbitration providers and we thank the drafters and contributors. We 
are not experts on this issue, but while searching the ICANN site for relevant 
official information we found that:

1)       The approved dispute resolution service providers are 4 and not 2 (see 
http://www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/approved-providers.htm). The draft BC 
position speaks about "... an effective duopoly of UDRP providers (WIPO and 
NAF)...." Therefore, the draft needs to be corrected. In addition, without 
taking a positive or negative position as regards the BC draft, but in order to 
better understand the issue, what do we answer to those who may ask, but what 
about the approval of the Chinese Centre or of the Czech Centre?



2)       In page http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/#proceedings, under "Approval 
Process for Dispute Resolution Service Providers" it is stated that:

"ICANN is not currently soliciting additional dispute resolution service 
providers; however, interested parties may contact ICANN on an individual basis 
to express their interest. The procedures used for approving providers in the 
past are provided for reference below."

Does anybody know if there is such a "decision" and what it says? If there is 
such a 'decision" (and a reasoning), perhaps the BC could use in the arguing.



We understand that time is limited, but we would appreciate if anyone can 
provide clarifications on the above, in order to understand the issue and to 
shape a view.

Best regards,

Konstantin



Konstantin KLADOURAS

Chairman ETNO IGV-WG



OTE S.A.

Directorate General for Regulatory Affairs

99 Kifissias Ave., GR-151 24 Maroussi GREECE