[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[registrars] WGs on WIPO report

Hi all,

 From ICANN BoD Press release after Berlin:

"The Initial Board noted that a uniform dispute settlement mechanism was
a necessary element of a competitive registrar system.  The Initial
Board noted that the scope of this policy should be wider than the cases
of abusive registration with which the WIPO report deals, and ultimately
cover all commercial dispute issues linked to Domain Name
registrations.  To this end, ICANN-accredited registrars are being
encouraged to develop and voluntarily adopt a model dispute resolution
policy while the DNSO has been asked to consider the relevant chapter of
the WIPO report, chapter 3, by 31st July, in time for public comment
before the Initial Board's next meeting on 26th August.".


As you see, the creation of the WGs on the WIPO report is urgent and the
schedule really tight, The WG on Chapter 3 (dispute resolution) will need some
kind of ˇfasttrack procedure" in order to deliver its recommendation before
July 31...

I don't think we ned to stress the importance of dispute resolution in
genreeal and the WIPO report in particular for registrars. Specially under the
current (adn unfortunate) cirucmstances putting on our shoulders the burden of
producing such dipute polices... (will not coment  ore on that right now, but
this is an issue we should seriously start disussing among ourselves).

This is the only WG that will be up and running form tomorrow,follwoing NC
first teleconf/meeting. Indeed, the IP consituency has taken the lead. They
even were considering in Berlin that this was somehow a "purely internal
affair" for their group. We needed to convince them that this is not the case,
that we all must be involved (most specially registrars).

We don0't know how the group will funtion or hwow large will be or.... The NC
will decide on these things, but the IP Const has provided alrady a nominee
for Chair (Jonathan Cohen) a co-moderator (David P. Thrush) and several
volunteers to serve there. Don't think any body will discuss their naemes or roles....

I worte to the NC explaining how crucial the role of registrars was, most
especially under the current ciurcumstances where we are (supposedly) writing
such dispute policies. I asked Jonathan to open the door to registrars and to
wait a bit for our volunteers. I have also pointed out that perhaps this WG
sgould be co-chaired by someone form IP and someone form the registrars. His
reaction was, as always, straighforward: he designated me (!)  as
co-chair..... But, with the exception of Jonathan hmself, everybody agrees
that all these decisions are up to the NC as a whole.

I would like asking register.com and those other testbed registrars working in
an uniform dispute policy to participate within the group. We all so would
need (and the NC would welcome) some furhter volunteers form our group (as for
the other WWGs, in fact). But we should bear in mind that the IP group is
ready to keep the ball rolling and at full speed (which is good).