The Internet Commerce Association (ICA) to which our company is a Silver Level Supporter of wrote today on its blog that ICANN has gone back on its word that it would create a standardizes contract for all Uniform Rapid Suspension providers to prevent forum shopping.
Phil Corwin on behalf of the ICA writes today that ICANN “staff today stated in Durban that it is NOT developing a standard and enforceable contract for Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) arbitration dispute providers, going back on its written statement of April that it was doing precisely that”.
“”Back at the April Beijing meeting we specifically asked about this during the Public Forum, stating the STI-RT unanimously recommended that URS providers be placed under contract, and then the board unanimously adopted all of its recommendations regarding the URS. And, yet, the National Arbitration Forum which had been selected as an URS provider is bound to ICANN only by a two-page memorandum of understanding with no enforcement provisions. So the first question is: Will there be a contract developed that goes beyond that non-enforceable memorandum of understanding?
“In a May 10th blog post appearing under the name of ICANN Chairman Steve Crocker responding to all the Public Forum questions, our question was answered as follows:
As regards Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) providers, will there be a contract developed that goes beyond the non-enforceable memorandum of understanding? Will there be other URS providers?
Yes, a contract is being developed and additional URS providers will be added.
“Now that written answer seemed quite unambiguous to us. So at a URS update session held today in Durban, we asked ICANN staff what progress was being made on the contract and when we could expect to see it published.”
“Their initial reaction amounted to “what contract”? “
“Then they conferred with one another and conceded that no contract was in development. “
“Finally, they tried to portray the 2-page MOU lacking enforcement provisions as the contract – when our Beijing question made quite clear that we were talking about something quite different than the MOU, and their April written response stating that “a contract is being developed” could not have meant the MOU since it already existed.
“”This is all simply unacceptable. It is unacceptable for ICANN to fail to implement the unanimous STI-RT recommendation that URS providers be placed under contract. And it is doubly unacceptable to provide a written response which turns out to have no connection with reality.…
