At-Large Workspace: Initial Report from the EPDP on Specific Curative Rights Protections for IGOs

Public Comment Close	Statement Name	Status	Assigned Working Group	Assignee(s)	Call for Comments Open	Call for Comments Close	Vote Open	Vote Close	Date of Submission	Staff Contact and Email	Statement Number
24 October 2021	Initial Report from the EPDP on Specific Curative Rights Protections for IGOs	COMMENT	CPWG	Yrjo Lansipuro Justine Chew						policy-staff@icann.org

Hide the information below, please click here

CategoryPolicy
RequestersGeneric Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)
ICANN org Contact(s)policy-staff@icann.org

What We Need Your Input On

The Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) Team on Specific Curative Rights Protections for International Governmental Organizations (IGO) seeks input on its preliminary policy recommendations contained in its Initial Report. These preliminary policy recommendations include several options currently under consideration by the EPDP-IGO Team, indicated by square brackets in the text, for which the EPDP-IGO Team welcomes specific comments.

The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council tasked the EPDP-IGO team to consider "whether an appropriate policy solution can be developed that is generally consistent with the first four recommendations from the GNSO IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights PDP and:

accounts for the possibility that an IGO may enjoy jurisdictional immunity in certain circumstances;
does not affect the right and ability of registrants to file judicial proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction;
preserves registrants' rights to judicial review of an initial [Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy or Uniform Rapid Suspension decision; and
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."

The GNSO Council had launched this work initially via a Work Track within the Rights Protection Mechanisms Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group, which was then conducting a review of certain trademark-related rights protection mechanisms. That PDP Working Group has concluded its first phase of work. In August 2021, the GNSO Council took the procedural action to initiate an EPDP on Specific Curative Rights Protections for IGOs to enable IGO Work Track policy deliberations to continue without delay, with no change to the original scope of work or composition of the group.

Proposals For Your Input
Proposals For Your Input
Initial Report and Preliminary Recommendations from the EPDP on Specific Curative Rights Protections for IGOs (PDF, 998.76 KB)

Provide Your Input

Background

In June 2014, the GNSO Council chartered the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights PDP to develop policy recommendations as to whether “to amend the UDRP and URS to allow access to and use of these mechanisms by IGOs and [International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs)] and, if so in what respects 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.” The PDP Working Group submitted its Final Report containing five recommendations to the GNSO Council in July 2018. Following several months of deliberations over the PDP recommendations, during which several GNSO Councilors voiced concerns over the implications of Recommendation #5, in April 2019, the GNSO Council voted to approve the first four recommendations and to refer Recommendation #5 to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) PDP to consider during its Phase 2 work.

In April 2019, the GNSO Council approved an addendum to the RPM PDP charter in January 2020 to initiate the necessary policy work on Recommendation #5. The addendum reflects the outcomes of various discussions between the GNSO Council and the Governmental Advisory Committee (“GAC”) as well as interested IGOs, during which the GAC and IGO representatives had indicated that they would be willing to participate in a targeted policy effort that focuses on the issue of curative rights for IGOs and drawing on the community's recent experiences with the Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data and Work Track 5 of the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP.

In December 2020, following a call for Expressions of Interest to serve as the IGO Work Track Chair, the GNSO Council appointed former ICANN Board member Chris Disspain to the position. The GNSO Business Constituency, Intellectual Property Constituency, Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency and the Noncommercial Stakeholder Group, as well as the At-Large Advisory Committee, the GAC and interested IGOs all appointed members in accordance with the specific requirements in the addendum. The team began meeting in February 2021.

Following the completion of Phase 1 of the RPM PDP and pending the launch of Phase 2, the GNSO Council resolved to continue the IGO Work Track through an EPDP in August 2021. The GNSO Council emphasized that this decision was wholly procedural in nature and was intended to provide a process framework to maintain the momentum the IGO Work Track had displayed and to continue the same scope of work (via the new EPDP-IGO charter) as reflected in the original addendum that the GNSO Council had previously approved.

The EPDP-IGO Team believes that its Initial Report reflects its current thinking about the policy problem the GNSO Council tasked it to consider. Public Comment submissions on the Initial Report will assist the EPDP-IGO Team to complete its deliberations and finalize its recommendations.

Next Steps

The EPDP-IGO Team will analyze all Public Comment submissions and, if appropriate, update its preliminary policy recommendations accordingly. Its final policy recommendations will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration and vote.

Supporting Information

This additional information from ICANN org provides more context for this Public Comment Proceeding and may help you review the proposals for input and publish a submission.

Supporting Information
Supporting Information
EPDP on Specific Curative Rights Protections for IGOs project workspace
EPDP on Specific Curative Rights Protections for IGOs project webpage

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.

Content

Space Tools