FINAL VERSION SUBMITTED (IF RATIFIED)
The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.
DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR DISCUSSION
The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins. The Draft should be preceded by the name of the person submitting the draft and the date/time. If, during the discussion, the draft is revised, the older version(S) should be left in place and the new version along with a header line identifying the drafter and date/time should be placed above the older version(s), separated by a Horizontal Rule (available + Insert More Content control).
From the end-user point of view, it is essential that a reliable, reasonably fast and effective mechanism will be set up to solve disputes about domain names identical with acronyms of intergovernmental organizations. Used fraudulently, they may create confusion, or worse. End-users need to be able to trust that information delivered under an IGO acronym emanates from the organization itself.
Thus, what we most care about is that the EPDP eventually reaches consensus, not necessarily the details, but we understand their importance for the main protagonists. The ALAC welcomes the results already achieved on how to enable IGO’s to access the dispute resolution procedures and on offering arbitration instead of court proceedings as an appeal mechanism after UDRP or URS. These compromise results are due to the cooperative spirit of the WT/EPDP and to the skills of its Chair, and they hold out hope of the group being able to clear the remaining hurdles on the road to full consensus.
There appear not to be strongly held views within At-Large on the yet unsolved questions that are presented as Options in the Initial Report. However, when it comes to minimizing confusion and potential damage to the end-user, time is of essence, and swift processes are preferred. This would bring us over to the side of Option 1 in Recommendations 4 and 5.
Alternative Draft, 6 Oct 2021
The ALAC takes note of the deliberations of the EPDP on Specifica Curative Rights Protections for IGOs (“this EPDP”) as well as the preliminary recommendations as contained in its Initial Report of 14 Sep 2021. We offer the following responses to those preliminary recommendations.
The ALAC takes the position that domain names which are identical to the respective acronyms of intergovernmental organizations (“IGOs”) and which are registered and used by third parties (non-IGO registrants), run a conceivable risk of creating confusion to Internet end-users, or worse where the use facilitates fraudulent activity. End-users need to be able to trust that any information delivered using such domain names emanates from the respective IGO.
Thus, the ALAC welcomes the results already achieved on facilitating an IGO’s access to the ICANN-created twin dispute resolution processes of UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) and URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) in a way which preserves an IGO’s privileges and immunities.
To this end the ALAC supports the following preliminary recommendations:
- Preliminary Recommendation #1 which seeks to provide clarity and reasonable certainty as to which entities are deemed as IGOs and defines an “IGO Complainant” for purposes of the UDRP and URS..
- Preliminary Recommendation #3 which seeks to remove the requirement for an IGO to submit to Mutual Jurisdiction in order to avail itself to the UDRP and URS, thereby preserving its privileges and immunities in the course of such proceedings.
The ALAC also welcomes the possibility of binding arbitration post a UDRP or URS proceeding involving an IGO and sees this as a favorable alternative but more direct route for a losing registrant to seek a review of an UDRP or URS decision, if the losing registrant so chooses.
To this end, the ALAC supports the following preliminary recommendations:
- Preliminary Recommendation #4(i) to #4(iv) and #4(vi), all of which are designed to introduce and facilitate the possibility of binding arbitral review of a UDRP decision, more or less, immediately after the said decision is rendered.
- Preliminary Recommendation #5(i), #5(ii) and #5(iv), all of which are designed to introduce and facilitate the possibility of binding arbitral review of a URS decision, also, more or less, immediately after the said decision is rendered.
As for Preliminary Recommendations #4(v) and #5(iii), we opine that from the end-users’ perspective the quicker the parties (i.e. IGO Complainant and losing registrant) can arrive at a final outcome, the sooner the question of risk of confusion (or harm) to end-users can be addressed in finality (more so for UDRP cases). For this reason, Option 1 in both #4(v) and #5(ii) are preferred, such that arbitration should not be sought to prolong a dispute for which a losing registrant has opted to initiate through a relevant court and has exhausted all recourse in that (court) route.
As for Preliminary Recommendation #6, while we agree with #6(i) we noted that the At-Large did not feel strongly one way or the other in regards to the Options 1 or 2, or #6(ii) the possible additional step still under consideration. We also reserve our opinion on #6(iii) in respect of the non-exhaustive general principles that are proposed to be further developed by an Implementation Review Team.
Finally, we understand that it is unnecessary for us to comment on Preliminary Recommendation #2 since the outcome would be subject to what ultimately happens with the package of Preliminary Recommendations #3, #4, #5 and #6.
