Re: [gnso-sti] URS Strawman Proposal 111109.xls
The following comments are being made on my own behalf for expediency, but are also in the process of being discussed by the At-Large STI support group.
In general, I like the direction this takes. Alan ---------------------------Format of Complaint: Although we support brevity, we need to ensure that the format is not so brief as to disallow reasonable defence.
Notice Contents: Although I appreciate the desire not to have to change WHOIS, I note that unless either the WHOIS must include a notation of preferred language (presumably from some reasonably inclusive set of supported languages), or the Registrar keeps a similar notation in their records and provides a way to access it (given thick WHOIS), it is not clear how language preference can be implemented.
Time to Answer: We strongly support he 20 days limit, but also support taking down the web site and replacing it with a URS notice some time after 14 days but before 20. This serves as an additional notification and also serves the IPC/BC interests of taking down the site as rapidly as possible.
Assignment of Panelists: It is important that regardless of the specific recommendation, it is made clear to staff who will have to do the detailed implementation that the intent is to limit the ability to "shop around" for a sympathetic Examiner. I note that the current wording does not necessarily do this, as it has been claimed that today, some UDRP claimants got to WIPO because they believe that their panelists and process may be more favourable to them. I have no direct knowledge whether that is true or not, but the perception itself hurts the credibility of the process.
Effects of Filing Answer After Default: I note that the expression "at any time" probably means "at any time during the life of the registration" as specified in the IRT report.
Appeal of Decision: This section needs some expansion prior to evaluation. Specifically, regarding use of "UDRP", woh choese a 3-member panel vs court, and who pays depending on success/failure of appeal.
Review of URS and UDRP: I support a parallel review of the UDRP to incorporate the characteristics of the URS and any other perceived issues. However, prior to its completion, what mechanism could be used to change the implementation of the URS?
At 11/11/2009 11:00 AM, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:
STI Team:Attached is an attempt at a strawman proposal on the key URS issues raised at our meetings. Not everyone will agree with every tenet of the compromise, but it is an attempt to do just that . . . reach a compromise. In some instances, principles are proposed, but details are left to staff to implement. This is appropriate for a number of reasons, not the least of which is our timing.Thanks to Zahid and Kathy and the others who paved the way with the consensus document. Also, thanks to Margie who -- per yesterday's conversation -- helped prepare parts of the chart.Finally, I offer this up neither as a representative of the Registrar Stakeholder Group nor of Network Solutions.I very much look forward to continuing the discussions with the team on these issues. I hope that we can reach consensus and improve upon the ICANN proposals.Best, Jon