3,197
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 42:
Line 42: − + + +
EPDP for Specific Curative Rights Protections for IGOs (view source)
Revision as of 18:27, 19 April 2022
, 2 years ago→Final Report & Recommendations
# 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, arbitration panel may determine what law to apply.<ref name="finalrep" />
# 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, 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 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.
==References==
==References==