[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Sections 4 and 6 of the draft Initial Report

[George Kirikos]

Hi folks,

To followup on today's call, I've rewritten the possible text to add
(it would go on page 10, i.e. under the "further discussion of option
2" section).

Here's the original text/comment (it looks like the page numbers have moved):

ORIGINAL COMMENT

H. page 9, further discussion of option 2: for the 3rd bullet point
(crossing into the following page), perhaps it can be expanded, to
highlight the fact that we know that UDRP decisions have been
successfully overturned in the courts on numerous occasions, even when
there were unanimous 3-panelist UDRP decisions. Furthermore, allowing
mandatory and binding arbitration without recourse to the court
creates the circumstances for a permanent DIVERGENCE of jurisprudence
between the arbitration bodies and the national laws or courts. i.e.
the existence of the appeal mechanism to national courts is of
critical importance as a check and balance on the entire UDRP/URS
system, because it ensures that the UDRP/URS cannot perpetually expand
to give rights that are greater than those that exist in the national
courts (which would then create forum shopping, where complainants
would use the UDRP/URS to obtain relief that they could never achieve
in the courts). Without these checks and balances, the power of
"rogue" panelists/providers and the incentives for forum shopping grow
considerably, undermining the purpose and integrity of the entire
system.

and here's the new suggested text, shortened to two sentences:

NEW TEXT

Would adding binding arbitration without recourse to national courts
create a risk that the jurisprudence developed under such a system
diverges from and becomes disconnected from that developed in national
courts, without the ability to reconcile those differences? Would this
exacerbate the risk of forum shopping?

Since this new text is directly related to the existing bullet point that reads:

"A critical question in this regards is whether the provision of yet
another [a] de novo review in the form of an arbitrate or other third
party non-judicial mechanism is equivalent in terms of access,
fairness and scope of relief it would offer a registrant compared to
seeking relief via a court of competent jurisdiction."

perhaps it could be positioned directly beneath that existing bullet
point. Note that there seems to be an extraneous "a" before "de novo"
in that bullet point, so might want to fix that too, if it hasn't
already been caught in other edits. I think "arbitrate" should be
"arbitration" in that existing bullet point, too.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/