Re: [alac] URGENT - prioritizing UDRP issues?
- To: <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <alac@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [alac] URGENT - prioritizing UDRP issues?
- From: "Ken Hamma" <KHamma@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:45:24 -0700
Not all of the twenty are policy issues. But those that are more directly
pertinent to process I find equally compelling as they respond frequently to
issues of transparency and sustainable value of the UDRP. Limited to five, my
personal favorites woudl be 1, 5, 9, 15 and 18. Some of the others, it seems
to me, are subsets. I would have thought, for example, that 4 is included in 5
in that 'conflict of interest' would be a concern in standards for accrediting.
Asst. Director, Getty Museum
Sr. Advisor for Information Policy, Getty Trust
1200 Getty Center Drive, 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1687
v +1 310 440 7186
f +1 310 440 7752
>>> Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 09/10/03 03:05AM >>>
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
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
> 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.
> 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
> (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
> (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
> ----- End forwarded message -----