[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Schedule - Is a full day needed ?
Re-readomg Jonathan's report, I think it fits our requiremtn for the vote. So
if you could add my "recommendations" arising form group b, with the little
explanatio I added, it would be perfectly nice for the vote.
This time I am attaching the text ;-))
The DNSO recommends the adoption and implementation of a uniform Dispute
Resolution Policy. Such DRP should be uniform accross current gTLDs,
approved by ICANN and implemented on a gTLD-wide level in a uniform way.
Uniformity should affect both material or substantive rules as well as
procedural rules with an effect on substantive rights of the parties. Some
minor, administrative, differences could be implemented in procedures followed
by different uDRP Service Providers. In this regard we recommend that ICANN
establishes an accreditation process for DRP Service providers based on
objective criteria, and that all accredited DRP Service Providers should be
incorporated by the Registration Authorities in their Domain Name Registration
Agreeemnts with registrants.
This uDRP is to be viewed as an alternative to litigation, as a fast,
inexpensive and Internet-friendly alternative (at least in relative terms) to
wordlwide legal systems and jurisdictions.
The main goals of such a uDRP would be increasing legal certainty, providing a
solution in cases where multijurisdictional conflicts prevent actuall
court-based dispute resolution and prevent forum shopping. In this regard is
it viewes as an altrnative, not a substitute for Court litigation, which
should remain open to the parties.
Even if the DNSO remains open to consider gTLD-specific DRPs, or variations
thereof for future for certain new gTLDs in light of possible specific uses,
characteristics or charters, we recommned a uniform DRP accross the curent
three gTLDs regrding both their undifferentiated use and the nature of the DRP
being recommended. Moreover, such a uDRP should be more than a series of
similar or even identical policies proposed by each registrar, a gTLD-wide
(or, in the current situation, a registry.wide) DRP approved by ICANN.
Neither registries nor registrars should be involved in actual administration
of such policy. In this regard we beleive that ICANN should accredit DRP
Service providers among specialized dispute-resolution insitutions, accrding
to a set of objective cirteria. Both material, substantive, rules and the
procedural ones that affect substantive rights of the parties (deadlines;
notifications; etc) should be uniform. But some room could be open for
differentiation in some procedural rules such as language; fees; and other