EPDP for Specific Curative Rights Protections for IGOs: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
# Institute rules and procedures for arbitral review of UDRP decisions in cases involving IGO Complainants. | # 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. | # 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, 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, 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: | 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> | <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. | 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== | ||