<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [alac] UDRP issues report -- ALAC position?



Agree with your assessment.We'd like to know how the NEW UDRP "Group" or TF be 
formed.

Hong



>===== Original Message From Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
=====
>http://www.icann.org/gnso/issue-reports/udrp-review-report-01aug03.htm
>
>As you know, ICANN staff has released an issues report on UDRP
>review.  That report is on the GNSO Council's agenda for next week,
>and I need some input about what to say there.
>
>The issues report discusses possible procedural and substantial
>issues for policy-making (ten in each).  With respect to many
>issues, the report concludes that ICANN activity with regard to them
>might step into areas which are properly left to established law,
>and that these issues should therefore not be touched by ICANN
>policy-making. For the remaining issues, the report warns that they
>may cause considerable contention.  The conclusion is then to give
>priority to WHOIS and WIPO2, and not to be active with respect to
>the UDRP.
>
>As this takes up an argument we have made with respect to WIPO 2
>abefore, I would probably elaborate a little on this point, basically
>stating that ICANN should certainly not extend the UDRP to take up
>complex cases better dealt with in court, but that -- on the other
>hand -- it is certainly within ICANN's mission to either cut back or
>fix policy where it has already invaded realms better left to
>courts.
>
>Besides that, this would be the point of time to raise any issues
>with the UDRP which we'd believe to benefit from a
>policy-development process -- either taken from Dan Halloran's list
>of issues, or generally known.  If there are no such issues, we
>should probably endorse staff's recommendation to give priority to
>WHOIS at this point.  (I would not talk about WIPO2 in this context,
>since we have argued that this is outside ICANN's mission, and not
>an appropriate topic for policy-making.)
>
>Please provide any input as soon as possible.
>
>Regards,
>--
>Thomas Roessler                        <roessler (at) does-not-exist.org>