[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[fwd] ICANN: UDRP review to be postponed? (from: roessler@does-not-exist.org)

Kommentare willkommen.

----- Forwarded message from Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org> -----

From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
To: edri-members@edri.org
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 16:10:34 +0200
Subject: ICANN: UDRP review to be postponed?
Mail-Followup-To: edri-members@edri.org
Bcc: roessler@does-not-exist.org

Deadline: Next Thursday.


* http://www.icann.org/udrp/
* http://www.icann.org/gnso/issue-reports/udrp-review-report-01aug03.htm

ICANN's staff has published a so-called "issues report" which
outlines options on how to proceed with the review of its Uniform
Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP).  That issues report
recommends to give priority to other items, and outlines a short
list of policy questions to be considered once review is started.

The report will be discussed at the GNSO Council's telephone
conference next Thursday. The Council is the body responsible for
administering policy-development processes.  We're currently seeking
input into the position the At-Large Advisory Committee should take
on this question.  (See below for some very initial thoughts.)

If you have any such input, or any issues with respect to the UDRP
which you would like to see attacked by ICANN, please let me know,
or send e-mail to the ALAC's public input address,

Kind regards,
Thomas Roessler			      <roessler@does-not-exist.org>

----- Forwarded message from Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org> -----

From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
To: alac@icann.org
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 15:42:00 +0200
Subject: UDRP issues report -- ALAC position?
Mail-Followup-To: alac@icann.org
Bcc: roessler@does-not-exist.org


As you know, ICANN staff has released an issues report on UDRP
review.  That report is on the GNSO Council's agenda for next week,
and I need some input about what to say there.

The issues report discusses possible procedural and substantial
issues for policy-making (ten in each).  With respect to many
issues, the report concludes that ICANN activity with regard to them
might step into areas which are properly left to established law,
and that these issues should therefore not be touched by ICANN
policy-making. For the remaining issues, the report warns that they
may cause considerable contention.  The conclusion is then to give
priority to WHOIS and WIPO2, and not to be active with respect to
the UDRP.

As this takes up an argument we have made with respect to WIPO 2
abefore, I would probably elaborate a little on this point, basically
stating that ICANN should certainly not extend the UDRP to take up
complex cases better dealt with in court, but that -- on the other
hand -- it is certainly within ICANN's mission to either cut back or
fix policy where it has already invaded realms better left to

Besides that, this would be the point of time to raise any issues
with the UDRP which we'd believe to benefit from a
policy-development process -- either taken from Dan Halloran's list
of issues, or generally known.  If there are no such issues, we
should probably endorse staff's recommendation to give priority to
WHOIS at this point.  (I would not talk about WIPO2 in this context,
since we have argued that this is outside ICANN's mission, and not
an appropriate topic for policy-making.)

Please provide any input as soon as possible.

Thomas Roessler			<roessler (at) does-not-exist.org>

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

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

To unsubscribe, e-mail: debate-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: debate-help@lists.fitug.de