[alac] URGENT - prioritizing UDRP issues?

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If we want to participate in the GNSO Council's prioritizing
exercise on UDRP issues, we need to submit our position by next
week.  I'm again including the list of UDRP issues that I had
circulated on August 19. 

Please let me know what issues I should present as the ALAC's "top
five".

Regards,
-- 
Thomas Roessler                 <roessler (at) does-not-exist.org>



> ----- 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 -----