<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] NCUC top 5 UDRP issues
- To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] NCUC top 5 UDRP issues
- From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 13:15:51 -0400
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This list was published and discussed on our constituency list but there was no
formal vote. --MM
(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]
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|