Flip J. Petillion (Petillion, Huizingen, Belgium), counsel for Claimant
Jan Janssen (Petillion, Huizingen, Belgium), counsel for Claimant
Jeffrey A. LeVee (Jones Day, Los Angeles, CA), counsel for Respondent
Kelly Ozurovich (Jones Day, Los Angeles, CA), counsel for Respondent
Amy A. Stathos (Deputy General Counsel, ICANN)
Casandra Furey (Associate General Counsel, ICANN)
Glenn P. Hendrix, Chairman of the Independent Review Panel (the “Panel”)
Grant L. Kim, Panel Member
Christof Siefarth, Panel Member
Thomas Ventrone (International Centre for Dispute Resolution)
Tom Simotas (International Centre for Dispute Resolution)
ICANN's breaches of its [Articles of Incorporation] and Bylaws by the ICANN Board and staff by inter alia, making a non-transparent, discriminatory and unfair application of the rules and policies governing the operation of the .org, .info and .biz generic top-level domains. In particular, the dispute relates to ICANN's decision to remove the provisions according to which the operators of .org, .info and .biz were bound by maximum prices they could charge to ICANN-accredited registrars for new and renewal domain name registrations and for transferring a domain name registration from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another. Namecheap is an ICANN-accredited registrar that is directly impacted by this decision. With respect to .org, the removal of the price cap provision is aggravated by the fact that the operation of .org risks being moved from a non-profit entity to a for-profit entity.
First, Namecheap has not established that it has suffered any harm as a result of ICANN's conduct; accordingly, Namecheap is not a proper “Claimant” under ICANN's Bylaws, and it has no standing to pursue this IRP Request. Second, Namecheap has not demonstrated that ICANN violated its Articles of Incorporation … or its Bylaws in any of the respects identified in Namecheap's Request for IRP. Namecheap plainly has not carried its burden.
a) The application of Article 4, Section 4.3(s) of the Bylaws, which provides that:
An IRP Panel should complete an IRP proceeding expeditiously, issuing an early scheduling order and its written decision no later than six months after the filing of the Claim, except as otherwise permitted under the Rules of Procedure. The preceding sentence does not provide the basis for a Covered Action.
b) The nature of the final merits hearing in this matter, taking due account of Rule 5A of the IRP Procedures, which provides as follows:
Nature of IRP Proceedings
The IRP PANEL should conduct its proceedings by electronic means to the extent feasible. Hearings shall be permitted as set forth in these Interim Supplementary Procedures. Where necessary, the IRP PANEL may conduct hearings via telephone, video conference or similar technologies). The IRP PANEL should conduct its proceedings with the presumption that in-person hearings shall not be permitted. For purposes of these Interim Supplementary Procedures, an “in-person hearing” refers to any IRP proceeding held face-to-face, with participants physically present in the same location. The presumption against in-person hearings may be rebutted only under extraordinary circumstances, where, upon motion by a Party, the IRP PANEL determines that the party seeking an in-person hearing that: (1) an in-person hearing is necessary for a fair resolution of the claim; (2) an in-person hearing is necessary to further the PURPOSES OF THE IRP; and (3) considerations of fairness and furtherance of the PURPOSES OF THE IRP outweigh the time and financial expense of an in-person hearing. In no circumstances shall in-person hearings be permitted for the purpose of introducing new arguments or evidence that could have been previously presented, but were not previously presented, to the IRP PANEL.
• Namecheap will serve any disclosure requests on or before August 18, 2020.
• ICANN will serve any disclosure requests on or before August 28, 2020.
• ICANN will respond in writing to Namecheap's disclosure requests on or before September 8, 2020.
• Namecheap will respond in writing to ICANN's disclosure requests on or before September 18, 2020.
• (1) a description of each requested document sufficient to identify it, or (2) a description in sufficient detail (including subject matter) of a narrow and specific requested category of documents that are reasonably believed to exist; in the case of documents maintained in electronic form, the requesting party may, or the Panel may order that it shall be required to, identify specific files, search terms, individuals or other means of searching for such documents in an efficient and economical manner;
• a statement as to how the documents requested are relevant to the case and material to its outcome; and
• (1) a statement that the documents requested are not in the possession, custody or control of the requesting party or a statement of the reasons why it would be unreasonably burdensome for the requesting party to produce such documents, and (2) a statement of the reasons why the requesting party assumes the documents requested are in the possession, custody or control of another party.1
Glenn P. Hendrix
Arnall Golden Gregory LLP
171 17th Street NW, Suite 2100
Atlanta, GA 30363 USA
Grant L. Kim
220 Montgomery Street, Suite 1411
San Francisco, CA 94104 USA
GÖRG Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB
Already registered ?