[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[registrars] Daniel Rechtman (MelbourneIT Submission) w/r/t Dispute Policy
I have forwarded this message to the Registrars mailing list on behalf of
Daniel Rechtman. Please be reminded that you may only post to the list from
your authorized e-mail accounts. Otherwise, you posting will be bounced.
Clive Flory has asked me to pass on to you all, Melbourne IT's comments on
the the draft DR Policy circulated 6 August 1999.
Melbourne IT considers this draft a considerable improvement on the prior
There do however still appear to be some areas of concern to us, as follows:
1. In clause 4, given that clause 5(i) effectively permits a complainant to
forum shop between the DR process and the courts, should there not be a
statement that a court order takes precedence over an arbitral award?
2. I am not clear how the mandatory administrative procedure is triggered .
In clause 5 a. is it triggered if a complainant "asserts" the facts covered
by (i) and (ii) and (iii), or asserts(i), and (ii) and (iii) in fact apply?
If the latter who makes the initial finding of fact?
3. In 5 b., who determines if (ii) to (iv) have occured?
4. Should not the complainant be required as a condition of invoking the DR
process agree to be bound by it, as the domain name holder is bound?
5. How can we say the DR process is mandatory if clause 5.i. provides that
it is not. Also, should the policy provide that as soon as notification of a
court process is received [ if in the course of a DR ], the DR process will
be stopped, or will they go on concurrently?
6. Are there to be consequences to a domain name holder if they do not
comply with clause 7?
7. Should there be a statement at the end of clause 8 that "we will honour
the decision rendered in the court action, arbitration or administrative
8. In clause 10, line 4, there is reference to the DR policy being invoked
by the domain name holder. There does not appear to be any way the holder,
as apart from a complainant, can invoke the policy.
I would be pl;eased to see any comments any other Registrars have on the