RE: [registrars] Top 5 issues associated with UDRP

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Go Daddy's top 5:</SPAN></FONT><br>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;<br>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">4 &amp; 5 -&nbsp;These could/should be considered together.</SPAN></FONT><BR><br>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">9&nbsp;&amp; 11 ?&nbsp;These could/should be considered together.</SPAN></FONT><BR>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">and 14, </SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">15,&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">19.</SPAN></FONT><br><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"></SPAN></FONT>
<P class=MsoNormal><BR>Tim Ruiz<br>
<P class=MsoNormal>Vice President Domain Services<br>
<P class=MsoNormal>Go Daddy Software, Inc.<BR><br>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><BR>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: [registrars] Top 5 issues associated with UDRP<BR>From: "Bruce Tonkin" &lt;Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Tue, August 19, 2003 1:09 am<BR>To: Registrars@xxxxxxxx<BR><BR>Hello All,<BR><BR>As discussed for WHOIS/Privacy, the GNSO is using the same process to<BR>identify the top 5 issues associated with the Staff Manager's report on<BR>UDRP.<BR><BR>Below is a list of issues in the Staff manager's report on UDRP.<BR><BR>The registrars constituency needs to identify the top 5 issues relating<BR>to UDRP of importance to registrars and their customers, through their<BR>GNSO Council reps (Bruce Tonkin, Ken Stubbs, and Tom Keller).<BR><BR>I will have a go at providing my personal view of a top 5 to start the<BR>discussion:<BR><BR>(4) Should the provider and panel selection processes be modified to<BR>address concerns about potential con!
flicts of interest?<BR><BR>(5) Should standards for accrediting providers and panelists be<BR>promulgated? <BR><BR>(6) Should transfers of proceedings between providers be permitted?<BR><BR>(9) Should the procedure for implementing orders to transfer<BR>registrations be amended?<BR><BR>(10) Should administrative panel decisions be subject to internal<BR>appellate review? <BR><BR><BR>The basis for my selection is simply that I have heard that there is a<BR>fair degree of variations in decisions made, and there doesn't seem to<BR>be processes to remove a person or organisation from the list of<BR>providers. &nbsp;Some sort of appeal process within UDRP may be helpful. &nbsp;I<BR>have also heard of problems implementating the decision of UDRP in<BR>relation to registrar processes (these may of course be handled by the<BR>new transfer policy) - it would be worth understanding this issue<BR>further to simplify processes for registrants and registrars.<BR><BR>Again I am not sure w!
hat process we should use to form a constituency<BR>position.<BR>Probably best to wait to see if other registrars have a different list<BR>of issues, or whether the above list is sufficient to put to a vote. &nbsp;It<BR>would be particularly useful to have input from those reigstrars that<BR>specialise in corporate domain name management.<BR><BR><BR>Regards,<BR>Bruce Tonkin<BR>Registrars rep on GNSO council<BR><BR><BR>I have numbered the issues in the order in which they appear in the<BR>Staff Manager's UDRP report.<BR>Taken from:<BR>http://www.icann.org/gnso/issue-reports/udrp-review-report-01aug03.htm<BR><BR><BR>(1) Should there be improved centralized, searchable access to<BR>administrative panel decisions?<BR><BR>(2) Should complainant and respondent filings be publicly available? <BR><BR>(3) Should complainants and respondents be allowed to amend and/or<BR>supplement their filings?<BR><BR>(4) Should the provider and panel selection processes be modified to<BR>address co!
ncerns about potential conflicts of interest? <BR><BR>(5) Should standards for accrediting providers and panelists be<BR>promulgated? <BR><BR>(6) Should transfers of proceedings between providers be permitted?<BR><BR>(7) Should refunds of providers' fees in the event of settlement be<BR>mandatory and standardized?<BR><BR>(8) Should the notice requirements be amended? <BR><BR>(9) Should the procedure for implementing orders to transfer<BR>registrations be amended?<BR><BR>(10) Should administrative panel decisions be subject to internal<BR>appellate review? <BR><BR>(11) Should the policy be changed to require registrars to wait until<BR>appeal deadlines expire before taking action in response to court<BR>orders? <BR><BR>(12) Should the policy be amended with respect to protection for<BR>non-registered marks? <BR><BR>(13) Should the policy be amended to provide guidance regarding the<BR>interpretation of "confusing similarity"? <BR><BR>(14) Should multiple complaints be allowed!
 concerning the same<BR>registration and registrant? <BR><BR>(15) Should the policy address the question of whether "holding"<BR>constitutes "use"? <BR><BR>(16) Should "settlement negotiation" communications be excluded as<BR>permissible evidence of bad faith? <BR><BR>(17) Should complainants be required to post a bond and/or pay a penalty<BR>in order to deter "reverse domain-name hijacking"? <BR><BR>(18) Should the policy expressly include affirmative defenses?<BR><BR>(19) Should administrative panel decisions have precedential effect? <BR><BR>(20) Should "cancellation" (deletion of the registration - allowing<BR>subsequent re-registration by anybody) continue to be an available<BR>remedy? </BLOCKQUOTE>