Jonathan, Aplogies for the delay but I am away and have had connectivity problems. Today is the deadline for submitting to ICANN and I think you suggested that I collect the comment of the other constituencies. As yet I have not received anything from other constituencies so have had to limit my input to a summary of ccTLD remarks. Input from the ccTLD Constituency: With such a short deadline imposed by ICANN, there was clearly not sufficient time to gather what could be described as consensus within the constituency and I feel that any report submitted to ICANN shoud carry a caviat to that effect. I think you mentioned this yourself during the last teleconference. I received a few individual comments from registries and some collective input from the Administrative (management) Committee. The Administratice Commitee would like to see the recommendations amended to show clealry that they are specifically aimed at gTLDs and that it is not the intention to apply them to ccTLDs. They would also recommend that the length of time that the UDRP be allowed to operate before being broadened be extended. Given that we are aleady half way through 1999, they feel it should be allowed to operate in the limited area of cybersquatting and bad faith long enough to prove its worth before being applied to other forms of dispute. A review of the operation of the UDRP 12 months after its introduction is suggested and a mechanism for receiving input from international legal experts around the world (not just international legal experts from the US) on the suitability of the URDP internationally. I have also been formally requested by The New Zealand registry, Domainz to submit their comments which I paste below. To: Fay Howard CENTR & Interim ccTLD member of the pNC July 30 1999
.nz response to WGA report 0800999.rtf