Historical Resolution Tracking Feature » Approval of the CIIDRC as a Provider of Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) Service
Important note: The explanatory text provided through this database (including the summary, implementation actions, identification of related resolutions, and additional information) is an interpretation or an explanation that has no official authority and does not represent the purpose behind the Board actions, nor does any explanations or interpretations modify or override the Resolutions themselves. Resolutions can only be modified through further act of the ICANN Board.
Approval of the CIIDRC as a Provider of Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) Service
Whereas, the Canadian International Internet Dispute Resolution Centre (CIIDRC) submitted a proposal to the ICANN organization to be approved as an UDRP dispute-resolution service provider (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ciidrc-proposal-new-udrp-pro...).
Whereas, based on the application materials, the CIIDRC meets the suggested elements for approval of UDRP dispute resolution service providers as set forth in the Information Concerning Approval Process for Dispute Resolution Service Providers (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/provider-approval-process-2012-02-...).
Whereas, the CIIDRC proposal was posted for public comment on 16 November 2018 (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/udrp-provider-2018-11-16-en).
Whereas, ICANN org considered the public comments received, including CIIDRC's responses, and identified no feedback that raised concerns about CIIDRC's capability to operate as a UDRP dispute-resolution service provider (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/udrp-provider-2018-11-16-en#summary).
Resolved (2019.05.03.12), the Board approves the application from CIIDRC, and advises the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to enter into discussions with CIIDRC regarding the process for CIIDRC's provision of UDRP services.
Why is the Board addressing this issue now?
The Board is considering approval of CIIDRC as a new UDRP dispute-resolution service provider now because this is the next logical step in this process, following: (1) the ICANN org's receipt of this application for approval, (2) ICANN org's review of the application, (3) the public comment period on the application, and (4) ICANN org's analysis of the public comments.
Which stakeholders or others were consulted?
ICANN org solicited broad community feedback on this application through a public comment period.
What concerns or issues were raised by the community?
Of the sixteen submitted comments, all but two were in support of adding the applicant as a UDRP provider. Those in favor of approving the application mostly were identified as being affiliated with the applicant as arbitrators/panelists or organizations affiliated with the applicant (CIRA and the applicant, CIIDRC). In addition, the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) offered support of approving the application.
Comments submitted by the Internet Commerce Association (ICA) and the GNSO Business Constituency (BC) did not have specific concerns about the merit of CIIDRC's application but took the view that establishment of uniform and enforceable standards for all dispute resolution service providers should occur before adding any new providers. As indicated above, ICANN org is in the preliminary stages of organizing an assessment of provider management.
Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?
This Board action is not expected to have a direct effect on security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS.
How is this action within ICANN's mission and what is the public interest served in this action?
The Board's action is consistent with ICANN's mission in facilitating the processes necessary to implement the community-developed policies developed in accordance with Section 1.1(i) of ICANN's Bylaws. This action will serve the public interest through expanding the availability of resources that the Internet community can access in applying this key domain name-related policy.
Is public comment required prior to Board action?
This is an Organizational Administrative Function for which public comment was received.