Yes, Section 6.3 of the revised document now provides registrant with the right to a de novo appeal by filing an answer any time during the life of the registration, so long at it is within two years after the determination issued by the URS provider. This is a stronger right than was provided in the deleted Appeal Section 12, which only allowed an appeal to an ombudsman on very narrow grounds, or by incurring the expense of bringing a civil lawsuit. Establishing such a meaningful right of appeal was one of ICA’s key objectives as the reconsideration of the URS went forward.

Thanks for your comments and your continued work for the industry.

With regards to the appeal, the redlined version shows the respondent appeal struck out…was it added somewhere else?

ICA fought against the creation of the IRT and the manner in which it operated as violating ICANN’s own Bylaws. We testified before it and then we testified again at the July 2009 forum on trademark protection in NYC, opposing its version of URS every step of the way. Then we worked closely with members of the STI, especially those representing ALAC and NCUC, to get the improvements in the current version (and, BTW Andrew, one error in your otherwise excellent summary of changes from the original — there now is a de novo appeals process available to registrants). I imagine that we’ll file comments on this version looking toward further improvements — as well as to guard those that are in this version, because the fat lady doesn’t sing until the rules for new gTLDs are locked down with finality.

What still makes no sense is having one set of rights protection rules for new gTLDs and a different set for incumbents like .com. Throughout this process ICA has advocated comprehensive UDRP reform that addresses the legitimate concerns of registrants and complainants regarding the current process. One part of that reform must be placing the UDRP providers under standard contract to ICANN to assure uniformity, provide ICANN with a range of enforcement tools short of deaccreditation, and to limit the ability of providers to abuse their Supplemental Rules authority to encourage complainant forum shopping through outrageous proposals like the “fast track UDRP” that’s been floated by WIPO and CAC.

We’re not where we need to be yet — but policy making is a process, not an event, and at least this one is heading in the right direction.

[...] New proposal still doesn’t make sense. But reforming UDRP does Read more here [...]