EPDP for Specific Curative Rights Protections for IGOs: Difference between revisions
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
# 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== | ||