[ga] [fwd] UDRP issues report -- ALAC position? (from: roessler@does-not-exist.org)

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Folks,

if you have any input on this, that would be most welcome -- either
to the GA, to me personally, or to the ALAC's official input
address, forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thanks,
-- 
Thomas Roessler			      <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>





----- Forwarded message from Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -----

From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: alac@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 15:42:00 +0200
Subject: UDRP issues report -- ALAC position?
Mail-Followup-To: alac@xxxxxxxxx
Bcc: roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

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
before, 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
courts.

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.

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

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