Summary: Prioritizing UDRP issues.
Here's my count of UDRP issues that were mentioned so far (also
adding my own five):
Ken Hamma:
1
4
5
9
15
18
Hong Xue:
1
2
4
5
10
19
Wendy Seltzer:
17
10
19
12
13
16
18
Esther Dyson:
1
2
4
5
18
13
Thomas Roessler:
13
15
16
18
2
This leads to the following count:
# issue
4 18 Affirmative defenses
3 5 Promulgate accreditation standards?
3 4 Address conflict of interests in acc. standards?
3 2 Make complainant and respondent filings publicly available?
3 13 Confusing similarity?
3 1 Improved centralized, searchable access?
2 19 Precedential effect?
2 16 Settlement negotiations?
2 15 "holding" vs. "use"?
2 10 Internal appelate review?
1 9 Amend proc. for implementing orders to transfer?
1 17 reverse domain-name hijacking?
1 12 Protection for non-registered marks?
Since 4 and 5 were considered to be part of the same package by most
who spoke up, this would leave us with the following five top
issues: 18; {4, 5}; 2; 13; 1.
I'm not sure, though, that issue 1 (centralized, searchable access
to UDRP decisions) is actually an appropriate topic for GNSO
policy-making. This would be a useful service that could be
provided by ICANN or any third party (or both), either for a cost or
for free -- but it's nothing that would require a community
consensus that then leads to rules that bind registrars and
registries. Addressing this in a policy-development process would
basically be a waste of resources.
For this reason, I'd like those of you who have listed #1 as one of
their top issues to reconsider this choice, and to focus on those
issues that make sense as possible changes to the policy proper.
Regards,
--
Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/
> ----- Forwarded message from Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> -----
>
> From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: council@xxxxxxxx
> Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:13:40 +1000
> Subject: [council] List of UDRP issues
> X-Spam-Level:
>
> Hello All,
>
> Here is a numbered list of the UDRP issues extracted from the staff
> managers report (there are 20 issues).
> I have numbered them in the eorder in which they appear in the report.
>
> As agreed in the last Council meeting, each constituency should review
> the list and identify the top 5 issues of most important to the
> constituency to help guide the prioritisation of further policy
> development in the area of UDRP.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
> (1) Should there be improved centralized, searchable access to
> administrative panel decisions?
>
> (2) Should complainant and respondent filings be publicly available?
>
> (3) Should complainants and respondents be allowed to amend and/or
> supplement their filings?
>
> (4) Should the provider and panel selection processes be modified to
> address concerns about potential conflicts of interest?
>
> (5) Should standards for accrediting providers and panelists be
> promulgated?
>
> (6) Should transfers of proceedings between providers be permitted?
>
> (7) Should refunds of providers' fees in the event of settlement be
> mandatory and standardized?
>
> (8) Should the notice requirements be amended?
>
> (9) Should the procedure for implementing orders to transfer
> registrations be amended?
>
> (10) Should administrative panel decisions be subject to internal
> appellate review?
>
> (11) Should the policy be changed to require registrars to wait until
> appeal deadlines expire before taking action in response to court
> orders?
>
> (12) Should the policy be amended with respect to protection for
> non-registered marks?
>
> (13) Should the policy be amended to provide guidance regarding the
> interpretation of "confusing similarity"?
>
> (14) Should multiple complaints be allowed concerning the same
> registration and registrant?
>
> (15) Should the policy address the question of whether "holding"
> constitutes "use"?
>
> (16) Should "settlement negotiation" communications be excluded as
> permissible evidence of bad faith?
>
> (17) Should complainants be required to post a bond and/or pay a penalty
> in order to deter "reverse domain-name hijacking"?
>
> (18) Should the policy expressly include affirmative defenses?
>
> (19) Should administrative panel decisions have precedential effect?
>
> (20) Should "cancellation" (deletion of the registration - allowing
> subsequent re-registration by anybody) continue to be an available
> remedy?
>
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----