UDRP Review and Evaluation, Terms of Reference

UDRP Review and Evaluation, Terms of Reference

20 June 2001

Amended and adopted 29 June 2001. Version v0 in 2001.NC-tor-UDRP-Review-Evaluation.v0.html.

Amended with the NC motion voted on 11 August 2001. Version v1 in 2001.NC-tor-UDRP-Review-Evaluation.v1.html.

Timeline adapted 1 October 2001. Version v2 in 2001.NC-tor-UDRP-Review-Evaluation.v2.html.

7 January 2002. Current version v3.

An extension period has been granted for the UDRP questionnaire: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011107.UDRP-Review-Questionnaire.html

The new timelines are noted below:

The ICANN Board resolved at its October 24, 1999 special meeting to proceed with the implementation of a uniform dispute resolution policy (UDRP) set forth in its Resolution 99.81 using the implementation documents approved in its Resolution 99.112 (see http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-24oct99.htm).

The ICANN Board further resolved that the President and General Counsel of ICANN monitor the ongoing operation of the administrative dispute–resolution mechanism described in Paragraph 4 of the UDRP and to make such adjustments to the UDRP’s implementation from time to time as they determine appropriate, including adjustments to the terms and extent of provisional approval of dispute-resolution service providers.[1]

The DNSO Names Council has since adopted in its 2001-2002 business plan a review and evaluation of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, and the establishment of an Interim Committee to propose terms of reference for an NC task force or other group to conduct such review and evaluation (see http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001-02.NCbusinessplan.html).

The interim committee consists of the following Names Council members: Caroline Chicoine (IP), Milton Mueller (NCDNH), Oscar Alejandro Robles Garay (CCTLD), Miriam Sapiro[2] (gTLD) and Ken Stubbs (Registrar). The interim committee has met via e-mail and their discussions are archived at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/tor-udrp/Arc00/maillist.html. Based on these discussions, the Interim Committee proposes the following UDRP review and evaluation schedule:

October 1, 2001 - November 1, 2001

The interim committee shall constitute a Task Force to create a questionnaire to solicit public comment through a bottom up, consensus-building DNSO process regarding various aspects of the existing UDRP. The Task Force shall work on the basis of consensus and not majority vote. However, to the extent no consensus can be reasonably reached on an item, majority vote shall rule with all dissenting views being made of record.

The interim committee shall solicit one individual from each of the following interest groups to be a part of this Task Force:

Business Constituency
ccTLD Constituency
gTLD Constituency
IP Constituency
ISP Constituency
NCDNH Constituency
Registrar Constituency
Complainant (or representative)
CPR Panelist
CPR Provider
eResolution Panelist
eResolution Provider
NAF Panelist
NAF Provider
Respondent (or representative)
WIPO Panelist
WIPO Provider
GA Member not already included in any of the above groups
Independent ADR expert
Independent academic expert

Once constituted, the Task Force shall seek a volunteer to Chair the Task Force. If only one individual volunteers, he or she will be deemed the Chair. If more than each member of the Task Force shall cast one vote for one of the volunteers with the person receiving the most votes being deemed the Chair.

The questionnaire shall be created with an eye toward identifying potential areas for reform, including without limitation:

· forum shopping
· publication of complaints and answers
· appeals
· reverse domain name hijacking
· quality of decisions
· speed of decisions
· precedential affect of decisions within and outside of UDRP
· costs
· continuity of decisions among and within panels
· res judicata effect of decisions within and outside the UDRP
· requirements for bad faith (i.e., domain name registration and/or use)
· fairness of Provider's supplemental rules
· ability to amend complaint

While the questionnaire will be in English, to the extent feasible, the Task Force will attempt to have it translated in other languages.

November 2, 2001 - February 6, 2002

Questionnaire submitted to public for response at least via ICANN's website, and via each UDRP provider's website where permitted.

An extension period has been granted for the UDRP questionnaire: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011107.UDRP-Review-Questionnaire.html

In addition, please note that the questionnaire is also available on the ICANN website at: http://www.icann.org/dnso/udrp-survey-en-06jan02.htm

November 1, 2001 - March 1, 2002

Task Force reviews results of questionnaire, as well as any third party studies directed to the UDRP including without limitation the Syracuse University study, the Max Plank Institute study and the Rose Communication study. Based on the results of the questionnaire and those studies, the Task Force shall prepare a Report summarizing the areas identified as needing reform and the recommendations to implement such reform. Again, the Task Force will attempt to translate this Report from English into as many other languages as possible.

March 1, 2002 - March 10, 2002

The Task Force's Report forwarded to Names Council for review.

March 10-14, 2002

Names Council votes on Report in Ghana.

March 14, 2002 - April 14, 2002

Task Force creates implementation schedule.

[1] The Board also resolved to request the General Counsel, with the assistance of staff, to prepare a summary of matters arising in the drafting process that should be considered as possible future refinements to the UDRP and to transmit that list to the DNSO for its study of those maters, with a view toward submission to the Board for the year 2000 of any recommendations the DNSO may have for such refinements.  To date, the DNSO has not received such a summary.

[2] Miriam Sapiro is substituting for Roger Cochetti.

Information from:
© DNSO Names Council