The ICANN Board approved the Arab Center for Dispute Resolution (ACDR) as an UDRP provider.
The approval of ACDR as the first UDRP provider located in the Middle East “enhances ICANN‘s accountability to the Internet community as a whole, enhancing choice for UDRP complainants”.
ICANN acknowledged that comments were submitted suggesting that “ICANN develop contracts with each of its UDRP providers as a means to require uniformity among providers. ”
However the Board stated that “Contracts have never been required of UDRP providers. ”
“On the issue of uniformity among providers, however, the ACDR’s proposal does two things: first, highlighted areas where risk of non-uniform conduct was perceived (such as issues with commencement dates and definitions of writings) have been modified; second, the proposal now includes an affirmative recognition that if ICANN imposes further requirements on providers, the ACDR will follow those requirements; third, the ACDR has revised a specific portion of its Supplemental Rules that was highlighted by commenters as a potential risk to uniformity. This is a positive advancement and helps address concerns of ICANN‘s ability to, in the future, identify areas where uniformity of action is of its obligation to abide by ICANN modifications that could enhance uniformity among providers.”
Of course, it was all a predetermined outcome. ICANN pretends that because “Contracts have never been required of UDRP providers” that somehow that gives them a free pass. Just because they “got it wrong” in the past doesn’t give them license to repeat past mistakes.
ICANN also used to not pay Board members any compensation. Funny how they changed that, in order to pay themselves. “Historical precedent” is only binding as a reason when they want it to be, to suit their own interests.
The last sentence of the latest comment summary stated:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-acdr-proposal-06may13-en.pdf
“Separate from the ACDR proposal, ICANN has been undertaking a process to review its relationships with UDRP providers, and that review is ongoing.”
They said the *exact same thing* in 2010, in that summary of comments:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/acdr-proposal/msg00007.html
It’s probably another example of “cut and paste” by ICANN staff. Despite all the problems with the UDRP identified repeatedly by the public, ICANN doesn’t hold the providers accountable. My “quick fix” solution, of allowing registrants to pre-select the UDRP provider (instead of allowing complainants to “forum shop”) would at least stop the “race to the bottom” that now exists amongst these providers.
Peachy. Years in, the ADNDRC still doesn’t know how to administer a UDRP case.