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

[vote01] FW: DNSO WG-A

This vote is being sent from Phil Sbarbaro, who would be sending from
psbar@hanson-molloy.org except for being on-site this morning.

> -------------------------------------------------
> 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 recommendations:
>         [ ] 1
>         [ ] 2
>         [ ] 3
>         [ ] 4
>         [ ] 5
> 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 of liability in
> the process. ICANN should not be called upon to establish any
> accreditation process for panel providers but should 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.