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

RE: [registrars] Vote on dispute resolution policy

Amadeu I have some serious concerns in light of what transpired in DC.  In
response to my question about who would be doing the Dispute Resolution
Accreditation, WIPO representatives stated that in their opinion they were
the only ones that have stepped forward and were capable of handling these
matters.  Moreover, they stated that ICANN would at the present time not be
interested in being involved with the accreditation process.  This statement
was made prior to Louie's arrival.  However, under the policy discussed on
Tuesday, multiple dispute providers would be meaningless because the
complainant would ALWAYS get to choose which provider was chosen.  I elected
for a lottery system where each complaint would be assigned to a pool of
Dispute Providers. Jonathan Cohen opted for a process where the defendant
got to choose the Dispute Provider.

I am also greatly concerned about the potential for this policy to be used
to handle other disputes, i.e. Rights or publicity, etc.

Since the meeting in Tuesday I have spoken with several registrars and there
are several that are not willing no subject their customers to the sole
discretion of WIPO panelists. I also found this following answer by a WIPO
official to be very insightful, "WIPO cannot be sued, we are a
intergovernmental agency."

-----Original Message-----
From:	owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf
Of Amadeu Abril i Abril
Sent:	Saturday, July 31, 1999 11:32 PM
To:	Registrars@dnso.org
Subject:	[registrars] Vote on dispute resolution policy

 << Message: [council] Vote for WG-A Final Report (2.82 KB) >> Dear

As you will see in the attached mail, the Names Council is voting on the
Workign Group A report concerning Chapeter C of the WIPO Final Report...

In clear: the NC has to decide whether to forward some policy

Tnbe recommendations, grossly summarised are:

1. Implement the WIPO reprot regading uniform DRP ASAP
2. DRP should be uniform accross all current gTLDs, even if differences
regarding future gTLDs could be considered
3 Uniformity refers to material rules and "substantive procedural" erules.,
Details in procedure should be open to differentation among differnet DRP
service providers (differnt arbittration insititueins, if you prefer, even
it is not a completey cor¡rect correspondence). Multiple DRP Service
should be accredited by ICANN
4. DRP should confine rfor the moment being to cybersquatting and piracy, as
defined by the WIPO Report. After a test pèriod, this could be extended to
other areas.
5 WIPO to be asked to set a voluntary procedure for DR in case other than
cybersquatting and piracy.

I sitll don't know hwat happened in Wahsington regading the DRP seminar (any
report, pleae?) but only a couple of registrars have expressed so fart theri
preference for a non-uniform DRP.

In cae you don't raise hell during the next 24 hours, I will vote in favour
these recommendations.