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

[vote01] RE: VOTE-1999073020

-----Original Message-----
From:	vote01@dnso.org [mailto:vote01@dnso.org]
Sent:	Friday, July 30, 1999 2:35 PM
To:	dont@netsol.com
Subject:	VOTE-1999073020

Vote Subject:  WG-A
In relation with Article VI-B 2. d of ICANN Bylaws I consider that

[X] WG-A has produced a set of recommendations that 
		shall be forwarded to the Board of Directors 
		as a community consensus recommendation
[ ] WG-A has produced a set of recommendations that 
		shall NOT be forwarded to the Board of Directors 
		as community consensus recommendations
[ ] WG-A has produced a set of recommendations, among 
	which only the following shall be forwarded as community consensus
	[ ] 1
	[ ] 2
	[ ] 3
	[ ] 4
	[ ] 5

Please note that you can provide a dissenting opinion in case the
recommendations are forwarded as such to the BoD despite your vote to the
contrary. These opinions will be attached to the report.
. commentary:
1)	Procedural Problems. There is no way to determine whether the
recommendations presented here from WG-A represent a "community consensus
recommendation" without at least significant input from the General
Assembly.  Although the gTLD constituency has voted affirmatively, and
supports the proposal in general, this procedural lapse is significant. 

2)	Partial Dissention. The gTLD constituency agrees in general that the
recommendations of Chapter 3 and Annex IV & V of the WIPO report of April
1999 should be implemented as soon as possible ( Recommendation
#1.), in a generally uniform manner across the current global TLDs (
Recommendation #2). We agree that uniformity should involve the scope of the
dispute, the timing and procedures involved, and the remedies provided
(Recommendation #3).   We further agree that the initial scope should be
limited to "abusive recommendations" as defined by the WIPO report
(Recommendation #4). Finally, WIPO should be encouraged to provide further
expertise ( Recommendation #5). 
We dissent and therefore disagree that any administrative dispute resolution
(ADR) process should be mandated directly from ICANN upon any or all
registrars, but should flow from the contractual obligations between
registry and registrar.  No process should be mandated by any entity, ICANN
or registry, until those registrars who contractually bind their registrants
to the process are legally satisfied with the procedures involved, and have
given adequate notice to their registrants. ICANN will not incur any
liability if these procedures are unfair, improperly implemented or
inadequately staffed (Recommendation #1).   Further, such ADR procedures,
while uniform in most aspects, should allow for variance in fees, payment,
panel providers, and involvement of the registrars, to the extend such
registrar is willing to accept the possibility in the process. ICANN should
not be called upon to establish a process for panel providers but leave it
to the private sector (Recommendations #2 and #3). As clearly enumerated in
Recommendation #4, substantial procedural problems remain to be addressed by
the industry of registrars who will operate with these procedures.  To
proceed too quickly is to risk the failure of the procedures, and to
destabilize domain name registration.   Registrars should be given the time
to draft and implement a practical ADR process based on real world
experience with registration.
Donald N. Telage