Line 36: |
Line 36: |
| ==Final Report & Recommendations== | | ==Final Report & Recommendations== |
| The team submitted its final report to the GNSO Council on April 4, 2022.<ref name="finalrep">[https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/specific-crp-igo-epdp Final Report, EPDP on Specific Curative Rights Protections for IGOs], April 4, 2022 (PDF)</ref><ref name="dashboard">[https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/specific-crp-igo-epdp GNSO Workspace - EPDP for Specific Curative Right Protections for IGOs]</ref> The report made several recommendations to improve an IGO's ability to protect its name and related trademarks. | | The team submitted its final report to the GNSO Council on April 4, 2022.<ref name="finalrep">[https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/specific-crp-igo-epdp Final Report, EPDP on Specific Curative Rights Protections for IGOs], April 4, 2022 (PDF)</ref><ref name="dashboard">[https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/specific-crp-igo-epdp GNSO Workspace - EPDP for Specific Curative Right Protections for IGOs]</ref> The report made several recommendations to improve an IGO's ability to protect its name and related trademarks. |
| + | # Clarify the UDRP and URS procedures to better define "IGO Complainants" and the eligibility requirements for such complainants to move forward with a complaint under those mechanisms. |
| + | # Remove the requirement that an IGO complainant submit to the jurisdiction of relevant courts; institute a notice procedure for respondents, explaining that a court may decline to hear an appeal of a UDRP or URS decision on grounds of the IGO Complainant's immunity from prosecution; offer binding arbitration as a separate means of appeal. |
| + | # Institute rules and procedures for arbitral review of UDRP decisions in cases involving IGO Complainants. |
| + | # Institute rules and procedures for arbitral review of URS decisions in cases involving IGO Complainants. |
| + | # Choice of law to be mutually agreed upon or, in the absence of agreement, may be either the registrar or registrant's principal address as listed in the relevant WHOIS database; as a last resort, an arbitration panel may determine what law to apply.<ref name="finalrep" /> |
| + | |
| + | The recommendations were designed to address the "review gap" in UDRP and URS procedures that initiated the EPDP in the manner prescribed by the charter document.<ref name="finalrep" /> The team noted the concerns expressed during the public comment period: |
| + | <blockquote>The Public Comments demonstrated strong concerns, particularly amongst individual commentators, regarding the EPDP team’s proposal to exempt IGO Complainants from the requirement to agree to submit to a Mutual Jurisdiction, to the extent that it would result in limitations on the registrant’s ability to file court proceedings against an IGO or in compelling a registrant to go to arbitration. These commentators emphasized that the outcomes of the EPDP should not reduce or otherwise adversely affect the rights of registrants.<ref name="finalrep" /></blockquote> |
| + | The arbitration procedure was intended to provide recourse for registrants without requiring IGOs to submit to the jurisdiction of specific courts. |
| + | |
| + | At [[ICANN 74]], the GNSO Council approved the final report and its recommendations.<ref>[https://74.schedule.icann.org/meetings/H2wGoiw8J8Lv7u6z8 ICANN 74 Archive - GNSO Council Meeting], June 15, 2022</ref> |
| + | |
| + | ==Public Comment Outcomes== |
| + | The EPDP produced the following recommendations to define “IGO Complainant,” exempt IGO Complainants from the Mutual Jurisdiction requirement, maintain a voluntary mutual arbitration option within the UDRP and URS, and clarify the law to be used in voluntary arbitration proceedings.<ref>[https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/generic-names-supporting-organization-council-gnso-council/epdp-specific-crp-igo-final-report-02-04-2022-en.pdf CRP IGO Final Report, GNSO Council Files]</ref> |
| + | |
| + | ===Perspectives=== |
| + | The EPDP recommendations received support from the [[GAC]] and several [[GNSO]] [[Stakeholder Group]]s. However, a few concerns were raised, such as the potential impact on [[registrant]] rights if IGOs are exempted from the requirement to agree to submit to Mutual Jurisdiction.<ref>[https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/generic-names-supporting-organization-council-gnso-council/public-comment-summary-report-final-report-epdp-specific-curative-rights-protections-igos-01-03-2023-en.pdf Public Comment Final Report EPDP on CRP for IGOs, ICANN Files]</ref> |
| + | |
| + | ''Supported EPDP Recommendations'' |
| + | * [[RrSG]], [[GAC]], and [[RySG]] |
| + | |
| + | ''Conditionally Supported with Further Review'' |
| + | * [[BC]] supported Rec 1 and partially supported Recs 3 and 4; suggested further expert review and consideration during GNSO's Phase 2 PDP. |
| + | |
| + | ''Conditionally Supported with Additional Requirements'' |
| + | * [[ICA]] recommended approval through the RPMs Phase 2 PDP or expert review; supported Rec 1 with minor changes and opposed exempting IGOs from the Mutual Jurisdiction requirement. |
| + | |
| + | ''Opposed EPDP Recommendations'' |
| + | * [[George Kirikos]] recommended rejecting the EPDP final report entirely, because he believes it was influenced by a captured group and disregarded community input. He opposes providing IGOs with greater rights and argued for preserving registrant rights. |
| + | |
| | | |
| ==References== | | ==References== |