[alac] [fwd] [council] List of UDRP issues (from: Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au)
- To: alac@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [alac] [fwd] [council] List of UDRP issues (from: Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au)
- From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 11:48:39 +0200
Thomas Roessler <roessler (at) does-not-exist.org>
----- Forwarded message from Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:13:40 +1000
Subject: [council] List of UDRP issues
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.
(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
(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
(11) Should the policy be changed to require registrars to wait until
appeal deadlines expire before taking action in response to court
(12) Should the policy be amended with respect to protection for
(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"
(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
----- End forwarded message -----