[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Option #6 -- final text

[George Kirikos]

Hi folks,

After debating how best to word the final text, I think I've come up
with a concise representation of the proposal (open to friendly
amendments).

As noted in earlier discussions, it can either be fully incorporated
into the existing "Option C" (which I believe had been the original
intention when the options had been aggregated from 6 numeric options
into 3 alphabetized ones, but option #6 had been overlooked). Or
alternatively, it can become an independent option on its own.

--------- start of final text  ------------------
The text of both the UDRP and URS rules and policies shall be modified
so that, in the event a domain name dispute (UDRP or URS) is initiated
by an IGO as complainant and a registrant commences an "in rem" action
in a court of mutual jurisdiction concerning that domain name, the
registrar shall treat that court action in the same manner as if an
"in personam" action had been brought directly against the IGO.
--------- end of final text -----------

I believe that text captures Option #6 in its entirety, without doing
a line-by-line modification of the UDRP and URS text within the
proposal itself (leaves that task to an implementation review team).
Only a few paragraphs of the UDRP and URS would need to be adjusted.
I've also narrowed the focus to only IGOs  above, but it could easily
be adapted (and indeed, implemented more elegantly) for any type of
complainant, not just IGOs (i.e. it was simply sloppy drafting of the
UDRP/URS that limited domain locking  and maintenance of the status
quo by the registrars to "in personam" cases at present, as the
drafters hadn't contemplated that court actions might be initiated in
any other manner).

For the background of this proposal, previous emails cover it at:

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-July/000811.html
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-November/000944.html
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo-crp/2017-December/000957.html

If Zak's recent proposal is adopted, whereby these multiple
interrelated issues we've identified which have root causes that have
broader impacts not just involving IGOs are forwarded directly to the
RPM PDP for deeper analysis and consideration, then this Option #6
would merit inclusion in that, given that there's really nothing
specific to IGOs in this proposal (although that I was forced to
reword it as such), except that we discovered this issue in the
context of an IGO PDP working group.

Sincerely,

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