Domain registrants have long voiced their desire for a comprehensive review and subsequent reforms of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). That goal is now in sight, and is set to proceed in the manner recommended to ICANN by ICA.
On January 11, 2016 ICANN policy staff submitted to the GNSO Council the âFinal Issue Report on a Policy Development Process to Review All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All Generic Top-Level Domainsâ. That Final Report is culmination of a public comment process that started last October, in which ICA actively participated, considering how a review of the rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) for the new gTLD program should be related to an unprecedented review of the UDRP, the only ICANN Consensus Policy that has never been subjected to scrutiny since its creation. Domain registrants desiring a balanced approach to their rights versus those of trademark owners have a big stake in both reviews. RPMs should recognize and protect the rights of both domains and trademarks.
In its December 1st comment letter, ICA stated its preference for a sequential review process:
ICA prefers a separate and sequential approach for the reviews and subsequent reports and recommendations, with the RPM review preceding and thereby informing the UDRP review.
ICA further explained its practical and policy reasons for that preferred two-part approach:
Both domain registrants and trademark owner complainants deserve, after nearly two decades of unexamined use, a UDRP review and reform process that is accorded adequate time for comprehensive review and development of subsequent recommendations. This review of necessity must be preceded by the RPM review, as it was the intent of the GNSO Council in 2011 that the UDRP review be informed by that of the RPMs and by any changes made to themâ¦.We fully expect that there will be substantial interest in completing the RPM review prior to the opening of any second round of new gTLDs, and that consideration provides another reason for structural separation. If the RPM and UDRP reviews were addressed together, substantial pressure could arise to truncate the UDRP portion lest it delay the timing and adoption of final RPM recommendations. As a result this first-ever UDRP review could get short shrift and inadequate attention.
That ICA suggestion was essentially adopted by ICANN staff. In this regard, the Final Report suggests the following procedure:
Following review of community feedback received regarding the three options for a RPM review that were presented in the Preliminary Issue Report for public comment, ICANN staff recommends that the GNSO Council launch a PDP in accordance with what was presented as the third option in the Preliminary Issue Report: namely, to conduct a policy review of all the RPMs in two phases. The initial phase would focus on a review only of the RPMs developed for the New gTLD Program, and the second phase would focus on a review of the UDRP. The second phase may also include any issues identified during the first phase of the PDP that are more appropriately considered during the second phase. Cumulatively, the results of both phases of the PDP would be a full review of all RPMs developed to date for all gTLDsâ¦.Staff recommends that the work in the initial phase of the RPM PDP be performed by a standalone PDP Working Group that liaises with the recently launched PDP Working Group on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures as there may be overlapping issues arising during the work of both groups that would warrant careful coordination. Staff does not recommend folding in a review of the RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program into the scope of work for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP due to the likely complexity and size of that PDPâ¦.Staff also recommends that, upon completion of Phase One, the PDP Working Group submits a First Initial Report to the GNSO Council that is also published for public commentâ¦.The second, subsequent phase of work in the RPM PDP would be a review of the UDRP, ideally carried out by the same PDP Working Groupâ¦.Staff believes that a benefit of this two-phased approach is a better alignment of the timing of the work on reviewing the New gTLD Program RPMs with the operational reviews of the New gTLD Program17 (including the CCT Review) and the PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures. (Emphasis added)
The GNSO Council has already proceeded in harmony with that suggested approach. During its meeting of January 21st, Council adopted a Charter for The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group that specifically prohibits it from addressing the RPMs, stating:
Second-Level Rights Protection Mechanisms: Proposing recommendations directly related to RPMs is beyond the remit of this PDP. There is an anticipated PDP on the âcurrent state of all rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to the UDRP and the URSâ¦â. Duplication or conflicting work between the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP and the PDP on RPMs must be avoided. If topics related to RPMs are uncovered and discussed in the deliberations of this PDP, those topics should be relayed to the PDP on RPMs for resolution. To assure effective coordination between the two groups, a community liaison, who is a member of both Groups, is to be appointed jointly by both Groups and confirmed by the GNSO Council. (Emphasis added)
That means that review of all the new gTLD RPMsâthe Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) and related Sunrise and Trademark Claims service periods; Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS); and Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (PDDRPs) â should be the sole preserve of a new Working Group (WG) on all RPMs in all gTLDs. Following that review, it will proceed to review the UDRP and consider whether it should be reformed.
The GNSO Council will likely take up a Motion to establish that RPM WG, as well as adopt its Charter, at its next meeting scheduled to take place on February 18th.
Once Council takes that next step, ICA intends to fully engage in the review of the new gTLD RPMs and, of course, the UDRP review. ICA will advocate an approach that, while fully respecting the legitimate rights of trademark owners, brings greater balance to the exercise of all the RPMs and that helps to make the application of the UDRP a more consistent and predictable process in the future. We will of course keep our members comprehensively informed as the reviews proceed, and will solicit their feedback and guidance as critical questions emerge.
This article was sourced with permission from the Internet Commerce Association website here.