Re: [council] UDRP interim committee
I take it from this that your constituency is concerned about the quality of
decisions made by UDRP providers - that is, with the implementation of the
UDRP, rather than with the principles established in the UDRP.
From my perpspective, I would be happy to support ToR which call for a
report on the quality of decision making (particularly with repect to the
appreciation by decision makers of x,y,z), as well as the principles
incorporated into the UDRP (is the scope too wide, too narrow, ambiguous,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 5:24 AM
Subject: [council] UDRP interim committee
> UDRP Committee members:
> FYI, the Noncommercial Constituency passed the following resolution,
> at its physical meeting in Melbourne, and later ratified through online
> vote, regarding the UDRP review:
> Resolution #1
> In any evaluation of the UDRP the NCC in Melbourne recommends the
> study answer the following questions:
> a. Do the panel members make overreaching decisions with respect to what
is confusingly similar?
> b. Do panel members make poor decisions on rights in generic names?
> c. Do panel members err on the issue of whether or not criticism, parody
or comparative advertising are "legitimate" interests in the use of product
or company name in a domain name?
> d. Do panel members misapply or miuse the definition of "bad faith"?
> Resolution #2:
> ICANN should ask an outside independent consulting group to evaluate
> the UDRP.