UDRP Issue table

Top 5 Issues in ranking order: 9, 1, 10, (4, 5, 2, 3), (11, 15)

Issue							TOTAL
1. Should there be improved centralized, searchable access to administrative panel decisions?	1(3)	1				1	3
2. Should complainant and respondent filings be publicly available?	1(3)					1	2
3. Should complainants and respondents be allowed to amend and/or supplement their filings?	1(4)					1	2
4. Should the provider and panel selection processes be modified to address concerns about potential conflicts of interest?				1(1)	1		2
5.Should standards for accrediting providers and panelists be promulgated?				1(2)	1		2
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?				1(3)			1
9. Should the procedure for implementing orders to transfer registrations be amended?	1(1)				1	1	3
10. Should administrative panel decisions be subject to internal appellate review?	1(4)	1		1(4)			3
11.Should the policy be changed to require registrars to wait until appeal deadlines expire before taking action in response to court orders?	1(4)				1		2
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"?						1	1
14. Should multiple complaints be allowed concerning the same registration and registrant?
15. Should the policy address the question of whether "holding" constitutes "use"?	1(2)	1					2
16. Should "settlement negotiation" communications be excluded as permissible evidence of bad faith?		1					1
17. Should complainants be required to post a bond and/or pay a penalty in order to deter "reverse domain-name hijacking"?				1(5)			1
18. Should the policy expressly include affirmative defenses?
19. Should administrative panel decisions have precedential effect?		1					1
20. Should "cancellation" (deletion of the registration � allowing subsequent re-registration by anybody) continue to be an available remedy?
TOTAL	7	5		5	4	5	26

TOP 5 ISSUES in ranking order: 9, 1, 10, (4, 5, 2, 3), (11, 15)

1. Highest ranking (3 each)
Commercial and Business Users, Registrars, Intellectual Property Interests Constituencies

Issue 9: Should the procedure for implementing orders to transfer registrations be amended?
Commercial and Business Users, gTLD Registries, Intellectual Property Interests Constituencies

Issue 1: Should there be improved centralized, searchable access to administrative panel decisions?

Commercial and Business Users, gTLD Registries and Non-commercial constituencies

Issue 10: Should administrative panel decisions be subject to internal appellate review?

2. Second ranking (2 each)

Non commercial Users and Registrars constituencies,

Issue 4: Should the provider and panel selection processes be modified to address concerns about potential conflicts of interest?

Non commercial Users, and Registrars constituencies,

Issue 5: Should standards for accrediting providers and panelists be promulgated?
Commercial and Business Users and Intellectual Property Interests constituencies

Issue 2: Should complainant and respondent filings be publicly available?
Commercial and Business Users and Intellectual Property Interests constituencies

Issue 3: Should complainants and respondents be allowed to amend and/or supplement their filings?
Commercial and Business Users and Registrars constituencies,

Issue 11: Should the policy be changed to require registrars to wait until appeal deadlines expire before taking action in response to court orders?
Commercial and Business Users and gTLD Registries constituencies

Issue 15: Should the policy address the question of whether "holding" constitutes "use"?



3. Third ranking (1each)
Non commercial Users constituency

Issue 8: Should the notice requirements be amended?
Intellectual Property Interests constituency

Issue 13: Should the policy be amended to provide guidance regarding the interpretation of "confusing similarity"?
gTLD Registries constituency

Issue 16: Should "settlement negotiation" communications be excluded as permissible evidence of bad faith?
Non commercial Users constituency

Issue 17: Should complainants be required to post a bond and/or pay a penalty in order to deter "reverse domain-name hijacking"?
gTLD Registries constituency

Issue 19: Should administrative panel decisions have precedential effect?

Constituency comments

Business Constituency

Priority within this list should go to issue 9 and 15 - relevant to improving what we have.

9. Should the procedure for implementing orders to transfer registrations be amended?

15. Should the policy address the question of whether "holding" constitutes "use"?

It is not straightforward to choose just some out of a list of issues that are not comparable in scope/time. However, on balance discussion within the membership of the BC has led to the following list - which we have categorised according to the scope of the issue. What we are saying is that these issues should be discussed not necessarily that there should be change.



Priority within this list should go to issue 9 and 15 - relevant to improving what we have.

We are however open to proposals from other constituencies on different priorities or linked issues.



1. Improving the functioning of the present UDRP.

(9) Should the procedure for implementing orders to transfer registrations be amended?



2. Changes which may help with consistency of the existing UDRP.

(15) Should the policy address the question of whether "holding" constitutes "use"?



3. Administrative changes which are nice to have but which add cost.

(1) Should there be improved centralized, searchable access to administrative panel decisions?

(2) Should complainant and respondent filings be publicly available?



4. Significant policy changes.

(3) Should complainants and respondents be allowed to amend and/or supplement their filings?

(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?



Non-Commercial Users Constituency comments:

(4) Should the provider and panel selection processes be modified to address concerns about potential conflicts of interest?

[This would include the problem of complainant selection of providers, panel selection bias by providers, etc. ]



(5) Should standards for accrediting providers and panelists be promulgated? [there should be some way to de-accredit biased providers and panelists]



(8) Should the notice requirements be amended? [Some feel that the notice requirements are too short. ]



(10) Should administrative panel decisions be subject to internal appellate review? [whether you agree or disagree with the appeal option, it seems to be a high priority issue that needs to be resolved.]



(17) Should complainants be required to post a bond and/or pay a penalty in order to deter "reverse domain-name hijacking"? [there should be some deterrent to RDNH]