ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] UDRP issues report discussion

  • To: "'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] UDRP issues report discussion
  • From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 05:23:48 -0400
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Acceptlanguage: en-US
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcwtmW2wXe+ePM0fSC6AzsN63H3aiA==
  • Thread-topic: UDRP issues report discussion

To point out the obvious:

If, as Jeff claims, the key problem is to get the bad actor registrars in line 
because the good actor registrars are doing the right thing, amending and 
changing the UDRP through a PDP is not the only solution.  The other one is to 
amend the RAA accordingly.

Also, this is the second time that Jeff has referred to the statement above as 
coming out of the registry-registrar meeting.  I'd be interested in getting 
confirmation from someone from the RrSG if his characterization  is accurate.

Thanks.

K







<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>