You are currently browsing the monthly archive for April 2019.

The GNSO Council has just voted to pass (Contracted parties 100% Non-contracted parties 84.6%) a motion in relation to the Final Report of the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group, it RESOLVED:

  1. The GNSO Council approves, and recommends that the ICANN Board adopt, Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the PDP Final Report. The GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to prepare a Recommendations Report for delivery to the ICANN Board in accordance with the process outlined in the ICANN Bylaws.
  2. The GNSO Council does not approve Recommendation 5 of the PDP Final Report and directs the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs (RPM) PDP to consider, as part of its Phase 2 work, whether an appropriate policy solution can be developed that is generally consistent with Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the PDP Final Report and:
    1. accounts for the possibility that an IGO may enjoy jurisdictional immunity in certain circumstances;
    2. does not affect the right and ability of registrants to file judicial proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction;
    3. preserves registrants’ rights to judicial review of an initial UDRP or URS decision; and
    4. recognizes that the existence and scope of IGO jurisdictional immunity in any particular situation is a legal issue to be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.
  3. The GNSO Council intends to amend the charter for the RPM PDP Working Group to reflect this new instruction accordingly.
  4. The GNSO Council affirms that it will take into account its approval of Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 4 in considering the recommendations it receives from the RPM PDP Working Group.
  5. The GNSO Council thanks all the members of the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP for their hard work in completing this PDP.

Explanatory Note/Rationale:

  • The GNSO Council is of the opinion that Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 4 do not constitute substantive policy recommendations, in the sense that they neither create new policies nor amend existing ones (including Consensus Policies). However, the GNSO Council acknowledges that Recommendation 1(a) and 1(b) propose that “no specific new dispute resolution procedures are to be created” and the Council’s approval of this recommendation should be taken into account when considering the final recommendations it receives from the RPM PDP Working Group.
  • The GNSO Council recognizes that Recommendation 3, if approved, may be interpreted as precluding any potential changes being made to the UDRP and/or URS. The GNSO Council wishes to clarify that, in its view, Recommendation 3 is concerned with ways to avoid jurisdictional immunity problems and does not address the specific issue of jurisdictional immunity; viz., the respective Rules for the UDRP and URS, as currently worded, require a complainant to submit to the jurisdiction of a national court, which may be incompatible with the jurisdictional immunity that some IGOs may enjoy in certain circumstances.
  • The GNSO Council does not approve Recommendation 5 of the PDP Final Report as it believes that approving this recommendation will effectively result in: (a) a substantive amendment of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS), both of which are under review by the GNSO’s Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs PDP; and (b) a potential reduction of the existing level of curative protections currently available to IGOs notwithstanding the fact that the PDP had been chartered to determine “whether to amend the UDRP and URS to allow access to and use of these mechanisms by IGOs and INGOs …or whether a separate, narrowly-tailored dispute resolution procedure at the second level modeled on the UDRP and URS that takes into account the particular needs and specific circumstances of IGOs and INGOs should be developed”