For more arguments on why wipo's proposals go too far, see my comments to WIPO.|
I think there are two additional points to make about this final report. First, although it's much tamer than the draft (just as the first round pulled back from the even more ambitious draft that preceded it), the precedents that WIPO proposes setting are quite radical.
I think, however, that the chances of ICANN adopting these proposals is very low for two reasons. First, the UDRP is clearly very broken, and the fight will be about how much to roll it back, not whether to expand it. The smart trademark people understand this, and have been very moderate in their demands for UDRP expansion, saving their political capital to hold what they already have. Second, to the extent that the WIPO proposals would require ICANN to cause the cancellation of existing registrations such as caffeine.com, this would represent an act of acquisition that would be a prohibited government "takings" if conducted by a federal agency. The loser of the domain name would have a case against ICANN in which s/he could argue a right to due process with a very sympathetic set of facts. ICANN isn't going to take that risk.
Having said that, once again I commend WIPO for the clarity of its writing, and for considerable honesty. WIPO admitted that there wasn't much evidence of harm to back up its claims for action. And at key points it admits that many of its suggestions would involve making new international law, and that the way to do this is through traditional processes, not ICANN.