No, WIPO wanted that. Signing a contract is to WIPO what garlic is to vampires. As an international treaty organization it is virtually impossible for them to be held accountable in a court for anything, since they will claim immunity from suit.

Wow. I can’t believe that.
I wonder if the DOC and Congress knew this when they ordered more transapency from Icann?

Maybe, Icann wanted that so no one can sue them?

ICANN must INSURE that whatever process registrants are bound to will hold all parties to one clear set of standards.

It is not a court, and it’s not an organ of the Czech Republic.

Consider the result if the Czech court system brought an action against the CAC:

—-
http://www.disputes.org/decisions/0563.htm

“Neither the complainant nor the respondent have any registered trademarks for the term ‘Federal Court of Canada’. However, complainant has common law rights to the name based on its extensive and continuous use of the name Federal Court of Canada.”
—–

The question here is whether one would be likely to confuse “Czech Arbitration Court” with an actual court in the Czech Republic.

I’d be willing to bet there are quite a few folks out there who believe it is something other than a for-profit private organization.

One thing to note about UDRP provider contracts. UDRP providers are required to post all of their decisions. When the UDRP provider goes out of business, the decisions disappear. The only reason I can provide that link to an eResolution decision is because someone volunteered to make them available. But all of the links from the ICANN list of proceedings to eRes decisions are broken.

Likewise, when CPR-ADR of New York stopped providing UDRP services, they took the decisions down, and had to be prodded by ICANN to put them back up.

The problem of failure to provide stable URL’s for UDRP decisions has been known for several years:

http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/02/2015214

ICANN does nothing about it.

And now we know why. UDRP providers are free to do whatever they want, and are accountable to nobody.

Interestingly, a respondent is required to indemnify the UDRP provider. While there is a lot of hand-wringing in UDRP policy about changes to WHOIS during a proceeding, for example to identify the party behind a privacy service, and how that would “change” the “mutual jurisdiction” {1}; it seems that the same policy makers are perfectly comfortable with a domain registrant’s commitment to indemnify an unknown party at the time the domain name is registered. That asymmetry is typical of the one-sided legal analysis that passes for rational thought in this arena.

{1} Although in fact, if the Complainant chooses the registrar’s location, the mutual jurisdiction will not change, and the location is typically the same for the registrar and the privacy service. Hence, the “issue” here is primarily FUD.

Good Luck Finding the UDRP Arbitration Provider Contract with ICANN – http://tinyurl.com/ygwq3xk