[bc-gnso] FW: Communication from Business Constituency regarding position of Constituency on approval of UDRP providers

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Thu Feb 28 07:40:17 UTC 2013


I retransmitted the BC comment with a pasted version as well as a new copy of the document. It was saved on my mac, and while I could open it, Steve noted a problem with it.  It has been received by ICANN in readable form. 
Marilyn Cade

From: marilynscade at hotmail.com
To: steve.crocker at icann.org; fadi.chehade at icann.org; john.jeffrey at icann.org
CC: excomm at bizconst.org
Subject: RE: Communication from Business Constituency regarding position of Constituency on approval of UDRP providers
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 02:37:29 -0500





It appears that the document may not have properly transmitted. It is pasted below, and is of course, posted back in Oct 2010 in the public comment process.
Marilyn
Pasted copy of 2010 submission:
















Business Constituency comment on recognizing new
UDRP providers

•              
To:
"acdr-proposal at xxxxxxxxx" <acdr-proposal at xxxxxxxxx>

•              
Subject: Business Constituency
comment on recognizing new UDRP providers

•              
From: Steve DelBianco
<sdelbianco at xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

•              
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:58:06 +0000

 

Business Constituency (BC) Comment on ICANN
Proposal

to Recognize New Domain Name Dispute Provider

 

*Background* 

There is a pending request for comment regarding
the application of the Arab Center for Domain Name Dispute Resolution (ACDR) to
become a certified

Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure (UDRP)
arbitration provider.

 

*Summary* 

The Business Constituency (BC) cannot support
approval of this or any other UDRP accreditation application at this time on
the grounds that no new UDRP

providers should be accredited until ICANN
implements a standard mechanism for establishing uniform rules and procedures
and flexible means of delineating and enforcing arbitration provider
responsibilities.

 

*Explanation* 

The BC notes that the voluntary registration or
renewal of a gTLD domain must be undertaken via an ICANN-accredited registrar.
All registrars are

subject to a uniform contractual agreement with
ICANN, the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). ICANN recently strengthened
the RAA with additional amendments and the addition of flexible enforcement
options, and a Final Report proposing additional RAA amendments has just been
delivered to the GNSO for its consideration.

 

In stark contrast, the involuntary termination or
transfer of a domain can be ordered under the authority of a UDRP provider that
has been accredited

by ICANN but which is not bound by any
constraints on or requirements pertaining to the exercise of that delegated
authority.  This has led to
increasing concerns about the lack of adequate procedural and substantive
consistency in the UDRP process. Such concerns are likely to grow if additional
providers are accredited in the absence of the uniform framework

of a standard mechanism.

 

The BC strongly advocates that ICANN must first
implement a standard mechanism with any and all UDRP arbitration providers that
defines and constrains their authority and powers, and establishes regular and

standardized review by ICANN with flexible and
effective means of enforcement. The ultimate sanction of cancelling
accreditation is an extreme sanction that ICANN has demonstrated a reluctance
to initiate in other contexts. 

 

ICANN appears to be transitioning from an
environment in which the vast majority of UDRP cases (approximately 98%) were
handled by two arbitration providers (WIPO and NAF) and in which significant
gTLDs were based in a

limited number of national jurisdictions to one
in which the majority of gTLDs and UDRP providers may well be headquartered in
a widely distributed group of jurisdictions.

 

In the future, business interests may well be
investing substantial amounts in these new gTLDs, for both defensive,  new branding, and other purposes.

In this type of environment it is even more
important that  all  UDRP providers be subject to uniform
and enforceable responsibilities, as that is

the only means of furthering the goal that UDRP
decisions are consistent within and among UDRP providers, and that the UDRP
remains an expedited and

lower cost remediation for addressing
cybersquatting.

 

The BC notes that the issue of whether UDRP
providers should be under a standard mechanism with ICANN is almost entirely
separable from the question

of whether the UDRP evaluation standards for
determining the existence of cybersquatting should be reformed.  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 a
standard mechanism.

 

*** 

 

The rapporteur for these comments was Phil
Corwin.

 

ICANN Business Constituency

http://www.bizconst.orgBusiness Constituency
comment on recognizing new UDRP providers

 

 


From: marilynscade at hotmail.com
To: steve.crocker at icann.org; fadi.chehade at icann.org; john.jeffrey at icann.org
CC: excomm at bizconst.org
Subject: Communication from Business Constituency regarding position of Constituency on approval of UDRP providers
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:57:57 -0500






Dear Chairman Crocker and President/CEO Chehade
Comment from BC on recognizing new UDRP providers
It has come to our attention that the Board Consent agenda includes consideration of a proposal for a new UDRP provider.  This was a surprise to many,  as there had been no intervening communications with the broader community since 2010.  There is therefore a lack of information regarding the proposal and how earlier concerns have been addressed by ICANN. 
I am retransmitting the position of the BC regarding recognizing new UDRP providers, which was developed and posted in October 2010, in response to an ICANN proposal to recognize new domain name dispute providers.
As described in the Statement, the BC believes that ICANN should implement a standard mechanism for establishing uniform rules and procedures and flexible means of delineating and enforcing arbitration provider responsibilities. 
Transmitted by the BC Chair, on behalf of the Business ConstituencyFebruary 27, 2013

 		 	   		   		 	   		   		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20130228/846d475f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: B C comment on recognizing new UDRP providers - Oct 2010 submission.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 38912 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20130228/846d475f/BCcommentonrecognizingnewUDRPproviders-Oct2010submission.doc>


More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list