ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[At-Large Advisory Committee]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [alac] URGENT - prioritizing UDRP issues?

  • To: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [alac] URGENT - prioritizing UDRP issues?
  • From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 18:36:43 -0700

In no particular order, here are a few that concern me. I haven't been hearing the discussion of UDRP review, though, so I don't know how likely it is that any will be pursued. Any thoughts on where we might make a material impact?

Procedural:
 (17) Should complainants be required to post a bond and/or pay a penalty
 in order to deter "reverse domain-name hijacking"?

 (10) Should administrative panel decisions be subject to internal
 appellate review?

(19) Should administrative panel decisions have precedential effect?

Substantive:
 (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"?

 (16) Should "settlement negotiation" communications be excluded as
 permissible evidence of bad faith?

 (18) Should the policy expressly include affirmative defenses?



At 12:05 +0200 9/10/03, Thomas Roessler wrote:
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 -----


--
--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx || wendy@xxxxxxx
Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>