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

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

Kladouras,

 

With regard to Point 1 - you raise a fair point. The use of the word duopoly
has specific legal significance regarding market power and the ability to
control price. I believe a more accurate statement may be along the lines of
WIPO and NAF receive the vast majority (insert %) of the annual UDRP filings
from amongst the four providers.

 

I think our credibility as a stakeholder group is tied to the accuracy of
your statements. When we make allegations that have legal significance which
we cannot substantiate that is not a good thing in my opinion.

 

With regard to Point #2. I agree with the accuracy of the statement Phil has
drafted.  The problem is I do not believe there is a written decision by
ICANN on this subject matter. However, if you ask the General Counsel or
other ICANN senior staff this is the response he is likely to give.
Hopefully this helps.

 

Best regards,

 

Michael

 

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Kladouras Konstantinos
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 8:06 AM
To: bc - GNSO list
Subject: [bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft #3 of UDRP Provider Standard Mechanisms
Position Paper

 

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>
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