ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

Re: [council] NCUC top 5 UDRP issues

  • To: Milton Mueller <Mueller@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] NCUC top 5 UDRP issues
  • From: Chun Eung Hwi <chun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 03:00:38 +0900 (KST)
  • Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <sf71990d.020@gwia201.syr.edu>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I agree to (4) and (5) as priority issues.
But I want to pinpoint the following issues as priorities than the
other things. a. and b. has to do with the collision with national laws. 
And c. d. e. has some implications of user's rights.
Please take into account this concerns given the different legal context 
and our constituency's raison d'etre.


a. - Should the policy be amended to privide guidance regarding the
interpretation of "confusingly similarity"?

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

c. - Should "settlement negotiation" communications be excluded as
permissible evidence of bad faith?

d. - Should administrative panel decisions have precedntial effect?

e. - Should "cancellation" (deletion of the registration - allowing
subsequent re-registration by anybody) contiune to be an available remedy?


On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Milton Mueller wrote:

> 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]
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82)  2-2166-2205
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667
Seoul, 158-600, Korea       | eMail:   chun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------




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