Re: Re[2]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Wed, Apr 11, 2001 at 07:09:05PM +1000, Dassa wrote:
[...]
> |> There were attempts to expand the scope of the UDRP but they were -- very
> |> wisely -- resisted.
> 
>It would seem to me that there exists a serious flaw in the thinking behind the
>UDRP and what led up to it.  Any initial resolution policy should have been
>implemented to deal with internal matters.  By that, I mean domain name disputes
>between existing holders.

? sorry, that doesn't compute.  1) barring technical screwups in the 
registry-registrar interactions, there is only one registrant for a 
particular name.  So for any given name, if there is a dispute, one disputant
holds the domain and the other doesn't; 2) if we are talking about 
different domains registered by different parties, then the udrp deals 
with disputes between existing holders.

>At the present time with the UDRP, we have a
>concentration allowing resolution on external issues.  Any experimental process
>should have been initiated on very specific internal issues.  This
>"experimental" UDRP was also initiated against one of the larger and more
>problematic issues.  Not a sound procedure.
> 
> It is also a process that is being continously expanded without improvements
> being implemented against the known flaws.  Again not a sound procedure.
> 
> I would say the UDRP has attempted to start off running and is picking up speed
> without going through any of the normal auditing and review processes.

?? There was a very long and large scale review process, international in 
scope, and with multiple revisions along the way.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html