Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.
The attached PDF letter is the ICA's Public Comment.
The ICA appreciates the work that the EPDP has undertaken and in particular commends the EPDP for making substantial changes to its Initial Recommendations as a result of stakeholder feedback. Nevertheless, the Recommendations; a) fail to preserve registrants' rights to judicial review, as required; b) should in any event be subject to review by the RPM Working Group in Phase 2; and c) cannot be properly considered prior to finalization of the proposed arbitration procedure.
More fundamentally, the ICA opposes the removal of the Mutual Jurisdiction requirement for IGOs. By exempting IGOs from agreeing to the Mutual Jurisdiction requirement, registrants are left without assurance that a court will assume jurisdiction in a post-UDRP action to overturn a UDRP transfer order. Indeed, the Recommendations expressly contemplate that after the removal of the Mutual Jurisdiction requirement, a registrant may have its case dismissed because the IGOs will not have already agreed to a Mutual Jurisdiction and can therefore raise arguments as to jurisdiction and purported immunities. This is not a remote possibility, but rather a serious and predictable outcome which the Final Report acknowledges by its inclusion of Recommendations which expressly consider what would happen if the court did decline jurisdiction in the absence of an IGO’s submission to a Mutual Jurisdiction.
Please refer to the attached document for the ICA's complete Public Comment.