[bc-gnso] For review / approval by 28-Oct: BC Comment on Accreditation of UDRP providers

berrycobb at infinityportals.com berrycobb at infinityportals.com
Mon Oct 18 01:06:01 UTC 2010

First let me begin by supporting the position started here.  I also  
agree with Phil’s statement that this issue is separate from the issue  
of UDRP evaluation standards, etc.  But, while separate issues,  
perhaps the issue of accreditation and/or standard UDRP Provider based  
contracts can be reviewed via the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP)  
Working Group recommendation of a UDRP review.  Presently, there is a  
RAP Implementation team reviewing each of the RAP recommendations, one  
of which where the RAP WG reached unanimous consensus in review of  
UDRP.  That recommendation requests for an Issues Report to initiate  
and launch the PDP process.  The RAP IMP team will prioritize the  
recommendations for implementation and hopes to submit its efforts  
back to the GNSO council by close of October.  At this time, we have  
not agreed on recommendation prioritization, but there does seem to be  
agreement that any UDRP Review PDP may require multiple PDPs, similar  
deployment to IRTP.

Secondly, I attached an updated version of the BC Position Statement,  
per Marilyn’s comment to use a style template on a previous position  
statement.  I took the liberty to update the template using the BC’s  
latest logo and style created by Chris Chaplow.  I did not have the  
soft files of the images, so this template could be improved some.   
Let me know your thoughts.  I DID NOT include Marilyn’s edits in this  
version of the draft.  Steve, can you ensure they are incorporated?

Thank you.  B

Berry Cobb
Infinity Portals LLC
berrycobb at infinityportals.com

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On  
Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 8:10 PM
To: Steve Delbianco; bc - GNSO list
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] For review / approval by 28-Oct: BC Comment on  
Accreditation of UDRP providers

These comments are offered as a member of the BC, in my private capacity.

First, I think that we need to continue to develop our BC comments in  
a positive tone, with a consistent 'look and feel', and with a view to  
Secondly, I provided some suggestions to the authors. However, I am  
not wedded to my language, but I am wedded to supporting that the BC's  
comments should show leadership.
I know that was the intent, and hope that my suggestions might  
contribute to that approach.

It is great to see such rapid turn around to get something out to  
members for consideration.

Thanks, Phil, and Steve.
I do have a question. Would you expect to freeze the document at some  
point, so that mmbers can respond to a final version?

Marilyn Cade

From: sdelbianco at netchoice.org
To: bc-gnso at icann.org
Subject: [bc-gnso] For review / approval by 28-Oct: BC Comment on  
Accreditation of UDRP providers
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 02:03:00 +0000

This draft comment is being circulated today (14-Oct) so that BC  
members will have 14 days to review, revise, and consider approval  
before the ICANN deadline of 28-Oct-2010.

The attached comment was drafted by Phil Corwin and was polished for  
submission by Mike Rodenbaugh.  Phil’s original note is shown at the  
bottom of this email, and contains some contextual material that may  
be helpful in your consideration of this draft.

This draft comment is in response to ICANN’s proposal to recognize a  
new domain name dispute provider.   For background on this proposal,  
see below, or at http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#acdr-proposal

Explanation/Background: ICANN has received a proposal from the Arab  
Center for Domain Name Dispute Resolution (ACDR) to be recognized as  
one of the official dispute resolution providers under the UDRP. The  
proposal was submitted pursuant to the process specified at  

The ACDR is jointly established by the Arab Intellectual Property  
Mediation and Arbitration Society (AIPMAS) and the Arab Society for  
Intellectual Property (ASIP), with headquarters in Amman, Jordan and  
additional offices in other Arab Countries. Both the AIPMAS  
(established in 1987) and ASIP promote the activities of the Arab  
Center of Mediation and Arbitration, established in 2003, active in  
resolving conflicts related to intellectual property through  
international arbitrators. If approved, the ACDR would be the first  
Approved UDRP Dispute Resolution Service Provider headquartered in an  
Arab state.

At its 5 August 2010 meeting, the Board approved staff’s  
recommendation to publish the ACDR proposal for a public comment for a  
period of not less than 30 days.

Upon completion of the public comment period, ICANN staff will analyze  
the comments received and evaluate further recommendations to the  
Board on proceeding with the ACDR proposal.

The proposal and relevant annexures are at:
ACDR Proposal [PDF, 156 KB]
Annex 1 – ACDR Initial List of Panelists [PDF, 176 KB]
Annex 2 – ACDR Screening Process [PDF, 8 KB]
Annex 3 – ACDR Supplemental Rules [PDF, 100 KB]

----- Forwarded Message
From: Phil Corwin <pcorwin at butera-andrews.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:54:47 +0000
To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>, bcprivate  
<bcprivate at bizconst.org>

Thanks to you, Steve, Sarah, Ron, Mikey, Chris and everyone else who  
put in place and participated in Tuesday's meeting of the Business  
Constituency. It was very worthwhile and hopefully will be an annual  

During the policy portion of the meeting I noted that there is a  
pending request for comment regarding the application of the Arab  
Center for Domain Name Dispute Resolution (ACDR) to become a certified  
UDRP arbitration provider. ACDR is located in Amman, Jordan; The  
comment period closes on October 28th.

Steve invited me to provide further details, and this e-mail takes up  
that offer. I don't yet have an ICA comment letter to share that has  
been approved by the ICA Board, but I can provide this background --

I noted that the ICA intended to oppose approval of this application  
at this time on the grounds that no new UDRP providers should be  
accredited until ICANN implements a standard contract with all  
accredited providers or finds some other mechanism for establishing  
uniform rules and procedures and flexible means of delineating and  
enforcing arbitration provider responsibilities.

Let me make clear that ICA's opposition will not be based in any way  
on the fact that this particular applicant is "Arab" and is located in  
the developing world. There were recent reports that an Indian  
organization is contemplating a similar application, and it may yet do  
so -- and ICA would take the same position in regard to them -- as we  
would in regard to any applicant from the US, EU, or any other part of  
the developed world. Nor are we  necessarily alleging that ACDR or its  
proposed panelists are lacking adequate professional credentials (we  
are still reviewing all of their supporting documents). That said,  
future UDRP providers are likely to be located in jurisdictions that  
have different local legal cultures, and this make it even more  
important to have a standardized governing document to keep the  
"uniform" in UDRP.

The problem is this -- it makes absolutely no sense to require that  
domains be registered or renewed via ICANN-accredited registrars who  
are under a standard contract (the RAA) but then provide that you can  
have your domain transferred away through a process administered by an  
organization that has been granted this power by ICANN -- yet is under  
no contract that defines its practices and procedures, is not subject  
to any regular or standardized review by ICANN, and for which ICANN's  
only disciplinary tool is accreditation revocation (so extreme a  
sanction that it is unlikely to ever be used).

I would think that everyone in the Business Constituency would  
understand the importance of a contractual relationship that defines  
and constrains this grant of power, and provides flexible and  
effective enforcement mechanisms, because that delegated power can  
extinguish substantial monetary investment and goodwill in a domain.  
Granting this kind of power absent any restraints is not an  
accountable practice.

As I noted yesterday, this is not just a domain investor/developer  
issue. We appear to be transitioning from a DNS that featured an  
effective duopoly of UDRP providers (WIPO and NAF) and in which all  
significant gTLDs were based in the developed world -- to one in which  
the majority of gTLDs may well be headquartered in nontraditional  
jurisdictions. Business interests may well be investing substantial  
amounts in these new gTLDs, for both defensive and new branding  
purposes. In this type of environment it is even more important that a  
proliferating cast of UDRP providers be subject to uniform and  
enforceable responsibilities, as that is the only means of assuring  
that UDRP decisions are consistent within and among UDRP providers,  
and that the UDRP remains an expedited and lower cost means of  
addressing cybersquatting.

Let me conclude by noting that this issue of whether UDRP providers  
should be under standard contract with ICANN is almost entirely  
separable from the question of whether the UDRP evaluation standards  
for determining the existence of cybersquatting should be reformed.  
That latter issue is a more complicated matter, and ICA recently  
suggested to ICANN that it should undertake an expert and impartial  
study contrasting trends in Internet trademark law decisions in major  
jurisdictions with trends in UDRP practice in order to provide a  
common foundation of information to inform any broader UDRP reform  
effort. There is no need to debate the substantive elements of the  
UDRP in order to address the fundamental issue of whether UDRP  
providers should be under standardized contract.

  I realize that it is difficult for the BC to reach consensus or act  
quickly. But I would ask fellow members to start thinking about this  
issue of whether you want  expanded ranks of UDRP providers to be able  
to decide disputes involving your domains registered in hundreds of  
new gTLDs located in multiple national jurisdictions without being  
under contract in that role.

  If the BC is unable to oppose this particular application I would at  
least hope we could achieve a consensus statement expressing concern  
about the lack of a contractual relationship between these providers  
and ICANN.

Thanks to my fellow members for taking this under advisement -- and  
thanks again to all who contributed to yesterday's event.
Regards to all,


Philip S. Corwin
Butera & Andrews
Washington, DC 20004
202-347-6875 (office)
202-347-6876 (fax)
202-255-6172 (cell)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BC_Position_ACDR-UDRP_v0.1.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 172032 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20101017/46817b1f/BC_Position_ACDR-UDRP_v0.1.doc>

More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list