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

[Phil Corwin <pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

While it's true that there are currenly four approved UDRP providers, the vast 
majority of cases are filed with WIPO and NAF; CAC was just accredirted about a 
year or so ago..



I just did a quick survey and these are current filing #s (all totals are 2010 
to date, except for NAF which is total for 2009):



WIPO-2069

NAF-1759

Asain DNDRC-59

CAC-11



So I will change the draft to delete the duopoly term and instead note that the 
vast majority (approximately 98%) of UDRPs are handled by WIPO and NAF.



As regards written decisions, I do not recall seeing one when CAC was approved 
-- ICANN simply announced that their application had been approved.



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: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Michael D. 
Palage [michael@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 8:44 AM
To: 'Kladouras Konstantinos'; 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft #3 of UDRP Provider Standard 
Mechanisms Position Paper

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, 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