RE: [council] FWD: Amadeu sent it to the wrong list -- is about WG-Agroupb

[Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>]

Hi -

Is there a latest version/final one of Jonathan's Working group A report
posted on the website now? I'd like to be able to refer the constituencies
to it to take a look at. I couldn't find one of the more recent versions,
but could easily be I'm missing something.

Thanks

Theresa

-----Original Message-----
From:	owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org] On Behalf Of
Elisabeth PORTENEUVE
Sent:	Friday, July 30, 1999 8:51 AM
To:	council@dnso.org
Subject:	[council] FWD: Amadeu sent it to the wrong list -- is about WG-A
groupb

> 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.
>