[alac] [fwd] ALAC remarks on UDRP prioritization (from: roessler@does-not-exist.org)

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This just went out to the council, as announced earlier tonight.
-- 
Thomas Roessler  <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/





----- Forwarded message from Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -----

From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: council@xxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 00:17:55 +0200
Subject: ALAC remarks on UDRP prioritization
Mail-Followup-To: council@xxxxxxxx

ALAC members have had some discussion on the staff manager's issues
report on UDRP review.  There is no clear consensus on the ALAC
about what issues would be our "top five."

Committee members were concerned about questions of transparency and
accountability regarding UDRP decisions (issues 1, 2, 4, 5 are
relevant to this); about internal appelate review and precedential
effect (10, 19); and in particular about affirmative defenses (18),
the interpretation of "holding vs. use" (15), and the interpretation
of "confusing similarity" (13).

It was observed that a centralized database of UDRP decisions (issue
1) would have most value if there is enforceable precedential value
to earlier decisions.  Issues 4 and 5 were considered to be so
closely related that they should probably be dealt with together.


There was also some criticism that the list of issues contained in
the staff manager's report was not helpful for reaching any
consensus on priorities: 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).  

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

----- End forwarded message -----