ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Some background and suggestions

  • To: <comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Some background and suggestions
  • From: "Richard Hill" <rhill@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 18:42:29 +0100

I'll cover below three topics:

1. Proposals made in 2004
2. Some aspects of the arbitration mechanism that has been proposed
3. Some ideas for a way forward

1. Proposals made in 2004

As I mentioned before, much of the current discussion seems similar to me to
the discussions that we had back in 2004.  At the web site referenced below,
there is a document titled "Part I": it summarizes the 2004 discussions.
many of the arguments made back then are similar to those made today, see:


For convenience, I have extracted from that document a concrete proposal
that was made back then and I attach it as a PDF file. That proposal did not
get consensus, or even majority support, and it went further than the scope
of the current discussions because it included protection of geographic
names (in addition to IGO names and acronyms). So it is not of current
interest per se, but it might give some ideas regarding how to move forward.

2. Some aspects of the arbitration mechanism that has been proposed

It is important to understand that the institution administering an
arbitration (e.g. WIPO) does not have any role regarding the decisions made
by the arbitrators. The arbitrators are not employees of the institution:
they are independent professionals who are named to hear a dispute.

Further, the choice of the arbitration institution could be left up to the
non-IGO party in a domain name dispute: indeed that was what was proposed
back in 2004, see page 3 of the attached extract of the 2004 report.

In the case of a UDRP-like mechanism, the arbitrators would hear the case de
novo, just as would a national court, and they would not give any deference
to the UDRP decision. 

Finally, it is worth noting that an arbitration clause in a contract between
a private party and an IGO typically protects the private party, because it
ensures that the IGO will not invoke immunity, as it might if the private
party took the IGO to court in a national jurisdiction.

3. Some ideas for a way forward

As I understand the situation, at present IGOs do not agree to the current
mutual jurisdiction clause in the UDRP, and there is significant opposition
to the proposal to create a UDRP-like process that would force non-IGO's to
agree to an arbitration clause.

Unless there is a change in those positions, it might be better to explore
the option of making it easier for IGO's to file a complaint through an
assignee.  I attach a second file (the Word file) which gives some ideas of
what such a mechanism might be.  That Word file does not contain an actual
proposal, it is just strawman language that might be helpful in triggering
further discussions that might (or might not) lead to consensus.


Attachment: JWGW2-final-report-part-1-extract.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

Attachment: IGO policy thoughts.doc
Description: MS-Word document

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy