[council] FWD: Amadeu sent it to the wrong list -- is about WG-A group b

[Elisabeth PORTENEUVE <Elisabeth.PORTENEUVE@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

> From owner-ga@dnso.org Fri Jul 30 13:20:50 1999
> Message-ID: <37A1875E.8C886227@nominalia.com>
> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:07:11 +0200
> From: Amadeu Abril i Abril <Amadeu@nominalia.com>
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01a (Macintosh; I; PPC)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> To: Dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie, ga@dnso.org,
>         Andrew McLaughlin <mclaughlin@pobox.com>, wwtld@ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Schedule - Is a full day needed ?
> X-Priority: 1 (Highest)
> References: <19990729084859.G47422@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr> <0FFN00I9SH8VLW@Salicet.ucd.ie> <37A0E330.CD124478@nominalia.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org
> Precedence: bulk
> Status: R
> 
> Victoria,
> 
> Re-readomg Jonathan's report, I think it fits our requiremtn for the vote. So
> if you could add my "recommendations" arising form group b, with the little
> explanatio I added, it would be perfectly nice for the vote.
> 
> This time I am attaching the text ;-))
> 
> 
> Amadeu
> 
> 
> ****
> 
> 
> The DNSO recommends the adoption and implementation of a uniform  Dispute
> Resolution Policy.  Such  DRP should be uniform accross current gTLDs,
> approved by ICANN and implemented on a gTLD-wide level in a uniform way.
> 
> Uniformity should affect both material or substantive rules as well as
> procedural rules with an effect on substantive rights of the parties. Some
> minor, administrative, differences could be implemented in procedures followed
> by different uDRP Service Providers. In this regard we recommend that ICANN
> establishes an accreditation process for DRP Service providers based on
> objective criteria, and that all accredited DRP Service Providers should be
> incorporated by the Registration Authorities in their Domain Name Registration
> Agreeemnts with registrants. 
> 
> +++
> 
> This uDRP is to be viewed as an alternative to litigation, as a fast,
> inexpensive and Internet-friendly alternative (at least in relative terms) to
> wordlwide legal systems and jurisdictions.
> 
> The main goals of such a uDRP would be increasing legal certainty, providing a
> solution in cases where multijurisdictional conflicts prevent actuall
> court-based dispute resolution and prevent forum shopping.  In this regard is
> it viewes as an altrnative, not a substitute for Court litigation, which
> should remain open to the parties. 
> 
> Even if the DNSO remains open to consider gTLD-specific DRPs, or variations
> thereof for future for certain new gTLDs in light of possible specific uses,
> characteristics or charters, we recommned a uniform DRP accross the curent 
> three gTLDs regrding both their undifferentiated use and the nature of the DRP
> being recommended. Moreover, such a uDRP should be more than a series of
> similar or even identical policies proposed by each registrar, a gTLD-wide
> (or, in the current situation, a registry.wide) DRP approved by ICANN.
> 
> Neither registries nor registrars should be involved in actual administration
> of such policy. In this regard we beleive that ICANN should accredit DRP
> Service providers among specialized dispute-resolution insitutions, accrding
> to a set of objective cirteria. Both material, substantive, rules and the
> procedural ones that affect substantive rights of the parties (deadlines;
> notifications; etc) should be uniform. But some room could be open for
> differentiation in some procedural rules such as language; fees; and other
> administrative aspects.
>