George Kirikos

That's it for today on the #ICANN IGO Final Report. I hope I've shown you all that it's simply garbage, a slimy attempt to strip domain name owners of a fundamental right, namely the right to judicial review. There's more to come this week on both my blog & Twitter. #UDRP

[6/6] This includes public access to all exhibits and filings, not just the decision. See: http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Open_Court_Principle … "There is a presumption that Courts are open including their exhibits and records."

[5/6] ...injustice operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial."

[3/6] And this was something I *specifically* commented on in the initial report, see item #4 on page 44 of: https://itp.cdn.icann.org/forms/publiccomment/submission/LEAP-comments-IGO-ePDP-2021-final-20211023.pdf … By keeping documents from the public, the public is less able to determine whether the decision was correct.

[2/6] "...made available to the public. This does not include case filings or other documentation relating to the conduct of the proceedings." This is in sharp contrast with US and Canadian courts, which are public by default, i.e. "open justice" or "open court principle".

[1/6] Without giving every example of what's wrong with arbitration, the #ICANN IGO Final Report wants to keep the process hidden, except for the decision! Page 37: https://community.icann.org/display/GNSOIWT/Final+Report?preview=/180027711/192220127/EPDP_SCRP_IGO_Final_Report_20220328.docx … Item #10, "All final arbitral decisions should be published or otherwise...(cont'd)

[3/3] Yet, somehow the parties are going to be prohibited from communicating with the arbitrators, to make those motions? #absurd

[2/3] That seems rather impossible, as procedural motions (in the event of disputes) need to be decided by someone, presumably the arbitrators! e.g. in the #ICANN IRPs, there are numerous procedural fights: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/irp-namecheap-v-icann-2020-03-03-en … that aren't "hearings".

[1/3] Another anamoly in the #ICANN IGO final report: https://community.icann.org/display/GNSOIWT/Final+Report?preview=/180027711/192220127/EPDP_SCRP_IGO_Final_Report_20220328.docx … Specific Principle #3 " Except when presenting their case during the hearing, parties should be prohibited from communicating with the arbitrator(s) prior to or during the arbitration process."

[4/4] The working group instead simply slyly and dishonestly *omit* any reference of reviewing the impact of Recommendation #2!! These are the folks who captured the working group, not any balanced group who would have insisted on studying impacts of *all* recommendations.

[2/4] "Did the changes outlined in recommendations 3 and 4 preserve the registrant’s rights for judicial review in a court but also provided the option for arbitration instead of court or subsequent arbitration where an IGO successfully asserted its immunity?" Where's Rec #2?

[1/4] Here's another example of UTTER DISHONESTY in the #ICANN IGO report, see page 19: https://community.icann.org/display/GNSOIWT/Final+Report?preview=/180027711/192220127/EPDP_SCRP_IGO_Final_Report_20220328.docx … This is the policy impact section, and they propose that the following be studied later (cont'd)...

[5/x] Obviously I'd want something that *benefits* registrants, but that should get fixed as a global solution, not just for IGO complainants! And, as I've documented at length, the appropriate solution is a "Notice of Objection", as per my submission at: https://freespeech.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/LEAP-comments-IGO-ePDP-2021-final-20211023.pdf …

[3/x] as a domain name owner doesn't receive the benefit of their own laws which are beneficial (i.e. lack of a cause of action for cybersquatting would mean they've done nothing wrong. 2. Under a different interpretation, is this like the UK "lack of cause of action" issue?

[2/x] ..law to be applied in accordance with the applicable arbitral rules." This can be interpreted 2 different ways. 1. If this is truly a de novo review, is it for the "cause of action" of cybersquatting that doesn't exist? In which case, an IGO gets a pure benefit (cont'd)

[1/x] Another example of pure ambiguity in the #ICANN IGO final report, Rec #5 on page 15 has the following: https://community.icann.org/display/GNSOIWT/Final+Report?preview=/180027711/192220127/EPDP_SCRP_IGO_Final_Report_20220328.docx … "In all cases, where neither law provides for a suitable cause of action, the arbitral tribunal shall make a determination as to the...(contd)