RE: Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes
|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: On Behalf Of Russ Smith
|> Sent: Saturday, 7 April 2001 11:05 AM
|> Subject: Re: Re: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes
|> Where people have contacted ICANN in these cases the staff says that ICANN
|> does not get involved. However, many domain holders expected that ICANN
|> would be the main arbiter of such cases. Certainly I expected ICANN to
|> develop a process to review such matters since the registrars often have an
|> interest in the outcome. I view this function as a very high priority in
|> managing a shared registry system and is particularly important in the thin
|> registry model we now have. At the same time ICANN is seen as getting
|> involved in issues which are viewed as well beyond their mandate.
|> If we are keeping score I will give ICANN 0.5 points for getting involved
|> with the shared registry system prior to their official designation of
|> authority in Nov. 1999 and -1 point for not setting up a system to handle
|> these situations for a total of -0.5.
This is one area that the UDRP really disappoints me. It should be a mechanism
to a handle ALL domain disputes and not just trademark issues. If it was
designed as a true Universal Resolution Policy I would be more inclined to
recognise it. At the moment it is only a mechanism used by one power block for
their own ends and does not serve the Internet community.
Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html