Re: [alac] URGENT - prioritizing UDRP issues?
- To: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <alac@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [alac] URGENT - prioritizing UDRP issues?
- From: "Hong Xue" <hongxue@xxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:04:48 +0800
In my understanding, the UDRP issues that should be prioritized in this
exercise should be the procedural rules, instead of those substantive rules,
which are included in 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18. Change of the substantive rules
will cause serious conflicts (such as common law trademark protection versus
civil law trademark protection) and take quite a long time to reach the
balance. I cannot see ICANN will do so in any near future.
In current UDRP practices, what can be done and needs to be done at this
stage is to improve the procedure. According to the Survey launched by the
"past" UDRP TF (the statistics was compiled section by section by the TF's
members, but the final result was never published, for the reason unknown ),
most people can agree upon the reform of the procedural rules to make UDRP a
more fair, effective and cheap proceeding. The topics that are most
important include: 1, 2, 4 (in connection with 5)10 and 19. With regard to
3, it has been permitted in practices (shown in the supplemental rules of
the providers). Another important issue, which I'm not sure if it has been
addressed in 6, is "re-submission" of the dispute that has been decided by
one provider to another provider.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 6:05 PM
Subject: [alac] URGENT - prioritizing UDRP issues?
> 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
> > 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 -----