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

["Zahid Jamil" <zahid@xxxxxxxxx>]

Though late just wanted to support the view that a contract should not be 
mandatory and accreditation or some other method of accountability be adopted.





                                       
Sincerely,

Zahid Jamil
Barrister-at-law
Jamil & Jamil
Barristers-at-law
219-221 Central Hotel Annexe
Merewether Road, Karachi. Pakistan
Cell: +923008238230
Tel: +92 21 5680760 / 5685276 / 5655025
Fax: +92 21 5655026
www.jamilandjamil.com


*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink 
***

-----Original Message-----
From: "Deutsch, Sarah B" <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:41:13 
To: 'Phil Corwin'<pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
'michael@xxxxxxxxxx'<michael@xxxxxxxxxx>; 
'philip.sheppard@xxxxxx'<philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>; 
'bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx'<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft BC Position on Establishing
 Standard Contract for UDRP Providers


Great -- thanks.

Phil -I would also urge removal of the language in your text calling for ICANN 
to sanction dispute providers.  Let's focus on uniform rules governing their 
qualifications and responsibilities.   The contract/sanctions model would not 
only run into problems with IGOs as Mike notes, but would also undermine the 
whole nature of independent third party dispute resolution providers.  People 
use these  providers exactly because they are independent and trusted third 
party not affiliated with ICANN.  But that's not to say that they shouldn't be 
subject to high standards and uniform qualifications.  If an entity fails to 
meet the standards, then they should be deaccredited.


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


________________________________
From: Phil Corwin [mailto:pcorwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 9:31 AM
To: 'michael@xxxxxxxxxx'; Deutsch, Sarah B; 'philip.sheppard@xxxxxx'; 
'bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft BC Position on Establishing Standard 
Contract for UDRP Providers

Consensus understood/I'm working on a revised draft and will circulate it later 
today.
Philip S. Corwin
Partner, Butera & Andrews
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20004
202-347-6875/Office
202-255-6172/Cell

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

From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 09:28 AM
To: 'Deutsch, Sarah B' <sarah.b.deutsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>; 'Philip Sheppard' 
<philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>; Phil Corwin; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] RE: Revised Draft BC Position on Establishing Standard 
Contract for UDRP Providers

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