[alac] Summary: Prioritizing UDRP issues.

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Here's my count of UDRP issues that were mentioned so far (also
adding my own five):

Ken Hamma: 
        1
        4
        5
        9
        15
        18
Hong Xue:
        1
        2
        4
        5
        10
        19
Wendy Seltzer:
        17
        10
        19
        12
        13
        16
        18
Esther Dyson:
        1
        2
        4
        5
        18
        13
Thomas Roessler:
       13
       15
       16
       18
       2

This leads to the following count:

      # issue
      4 18      Affirmative defenses
      3 5       Promulgate accreditation standards?
      3 4       Address conflict of interests in acc. standards?
      3 2       Make complainant and respondent filings publicly available?
      3 13      Confusing similarity?
      3 1       Improved centralized, searchable access?
      2 19      Precedential effect?
      2 16      Settlement negotiations?
      2 15      "holding" vs. "use"?
      2 10      Internal appelate review?
      1 9       Amend proc. for implementing orders to transfer?
      1 17      reverse domain-name hijacking?
      1 12      Protection for non-registered marks?


Since 4 and 5 were considered to be part of the same package by most
who spoke up, this would leave us with the following five top
issues: 18; {4, 5}; 2; 13; 1.  

I'm not sure, though, that issue 1 (centralized, searchable access
to UDRP decisions) is actually an appropriate topic for GNSO
policy-making.  This would be a useful service that could be
provided by ICANN or any third party (or both), either for a cost or
for free -- but it's nothing that would require a community
consensus that then leads to rules that bind registrars and
registries.  Addressing this in a policy-development process would
basically be a waste of resources.

For this reason, I'd like those of you who have listed #1 as one of
their top issues to reconsider this choice, and to focus on those
issues that make sense as possible changes to the policy proper.

Regards,
-- 
Thomas Roessler  <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/







> ----- 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 -----