View source for EPDP for Specific Curative Rights Protections for IGOs

==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.