Re: [registrars] Top 5 issues associated with UDRP

["Siegfried Langenbach" <svl@xxxxxxx>]

Hallo,

from my point of view:

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

clearly NO. Deletion of a domain is only good for laywers, that way 
they can start a new case in few weeks.


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

Education may be needed here. Those in charge of the UDRP-
process sometimes do not have the knowledge of what a transfer 
(or contact) means. Sometime its even worse : when the case is 
decided sombody new is in charge to perform the transfer and 
he/she did not have the emails (and information) send from the 
registrar to the winning party.

Respectfully
Siegfried Langenbach 
 
Computer Service Langenbach GmbH (CSL GmbH)
GERMANY
 


On 19 Aug 2003 at 18:09, Bruce Tonkin wrote:

Subject:        	[registrars] Top 5 issues associated with UDRP
Date sent:      	Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:09:41 +1000
From:           	"Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:             	<Registrars@xxxxxxxx>

> 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?