Re: [alac] UDRP issue prioritization -- no clear message?
I'd agree that UDRP is an issue on which the Internet-using public, and this committee, have a variety of opinions. At the same time, I'd say that the list of issues we were given to prioritize is particularly unhelpful in reaching any consensus. The issues differed widely in scope, some reaching to the core of the policy (definition of "confusing similarity" and holding vs. "use") or its operation (precedential value), others having a more limited nature (should decisions be put in a central repository, should complaints and responses be published, should providers be accredited).
It appears that those who think the entire UDRP is broken in a way that harms individual registrants favor broad changes to the substance of the procedure to balance the power of challenger and respondent and to provide better notice to registrants of their rights, while those who think the UDRP as-is does a good job of protecting the public against cybersquatting confusion favor study of more minimal changes to regularize its procedures.
Personally, I think the UDRP is a mess, unpredictable and often at odds with legal principles and free speech concerns. I don't want to be rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, engaging in a "study" that validates a fundamentally broken process by adding a procedural nicety or two.
That said, I think Thomas's statement below does a good job reporting our committee discussion. Since ALAC isn't a "constituency," it probably wouldn't have any effect if we did submit a specific list, anyhow.
I'd leave out the Verisign mention. --Wendy
At 0:59 +0200 9/23/03, Thomas Roessler wrote:
First, apologies for coming up with this so lately; we only have about a day left for coming to closure on this.
-- -- 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