[registrars] Top 5 issues associated with UDRP

["Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello All,

As discussed for WHOIS/Privacy, the GNSO is using the same process to
identify the top 5 issues associated with the Staff Manager's report on
UDRP.

Below is a list of issues in the Staff manager's report on UDRP.

The registrars constituency needs to identify the top 5 issues relating
to UDRP of importance to registrars and their customers, through their
GNSO Council reps (Bruce Tonkin, Ken Stubbs, and Tom Keller).

I will have a go at providing my personal view of a top 5 to start the
discussion:

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

(5) Should standards for accrediting providers and panelists be
promulgated? 

(6) Should transfers of proceedings between providers be permitted?

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

(10) Should administrative panel decisions be subject to internal
appellate review? 


The basis for my selection is simply that I have heard that there is a
fair degree of variations in decisions made, and there doesn't seem to
be processes to remove a person or organisation from the list of
providers.  Some sort of appeal process within UDRP may be helpful.  I
have also heard of problems implementating the decision of UDRP in
relation to registrar processes (these may of course be handled by the
new transfer policy) - it would be worth understanding this issue
further to simplify processes for registrants and registrars.

Again I am not sure what process we should use to form a constituency
position.
Probably best to wait to see if other registrars have a different list
of issues, or whether the above list is sufficient to put to a vote.  It
would be particularly useful to have input from those reigstrars that
specialise in corporate domain name management.


Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
Registrars rep on GNSO council


I have numbered the issues in the order in which they appear in the
Staff Manager's UDRP report.
Taken from:
http://www.icann.org/gnso/issue-reports/udrp-review-report-01aug03.htm


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

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

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

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

(5) Should standards for accrediting providers and panelists be
promulgated? 

(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? 

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

(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? 

(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"? 

(14) Should multiple complaints be allowed concerning the same
registration and registrant? 

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

(16) Should "settlement negotiation" communications be excluded as
permissible evidence of bad faith? 

(17) Should complainants be required to post a bond and/or pay a penalty
in order to deter "reverse domain-name hijacking"? 

(18) Should the policy expressly include affirmative defenses?

(19) Should administrative panel decisions have precedential effect? 

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