Re: [alac] URGENT - prioritizing UDRP issues?

[Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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