ICANN vs dotPH UDRP
There are key differences between ICANN's UDRP and the DotPH UDRP, as follows:
Under ICANN's UDRP, the nameholder warrants that "to (his) knowledge, the registration of the domain name will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party " and that he "will not knowingly use the domain name in violation of any applicable laws or regulations ." Since these representations cover the "rights of any third party" arising under the law of any country, it is overbroad and nameholders may not intelligently make such representations as they cannot be expected know all the laws and regulations of all countries as well as the rights of third parties thereunder. Hence, the dotPH UDRP limits those representations to the laws existing where the nameholder resides or conducts business.
2. Proof of Good Faith Use
ICANN's UDRP allows nameholders to prove their legitimate rights and interests in the domain name under paragraph 4(c). However, a nameholder may not claim legitimate rights and interests if he uses the domain "or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue." We believe this provision may be abused by trademark and service mark owners in order to stifle legitimate criticism of their marks. Hence, clause does not appear in the dotPH UDRP.
3. Time Period to Resort to Court Proceedings
ICANN's UDRP provides for a 10-day period within which the losing nameholder may elevate the issue before a court of competent jurisdiction. On the ground that this period is too short, the dotPH UDRP has extended it to 30 days .
 Par. 2(b), ICANN UDRP
 Par. 2(d), ICANN UDRP
 Par. 4(k), dotPH UDRP