Re: [council] WG-A reoprt

[Amadeu Abril i Abril <Amadeu@nominalia.com>]

Fay Howard wrote:
> 
> 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.

Just a clarification: today is our deadline, NC deadline. ICANN has to publish
this three weeks in advance of any formal disucssion, and as the BoD meeting
is on August 25 &26 we still have in fact three days to a) finalize the report
with NC members botes and input and b) have it published by ICANN.


Bit we need all NC mmebers to vote by tomorrow, as specified by the ballot
sent aout by the Secretariat.

> 
> 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.

A personal coment: yes, the basic recommnedations in WG A report have only
been disucssed by all of us during the last three years :-( But I understand
and appreciate your point. Indeed the time contraint will be adequately
addressed in the text sumbitted to ICANN.

> 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.

I think this is already the case, but we will make sure this is clearly
spelled out in the introductions.

> 
> 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.
> 

Yes, we are reciveng other input in the same direction. Noted.

> 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.
>

I am not completly sure about it, Fay. We have to include a report on WG-A
activities (and I am not complety sure whehter Domainz has participated,
probably yes) and we must submit all dissenting views or minority opinions
form NC members.

But I am reluctant to attach a document that comes so late, ie, after the WGA
has completed its work, and after our internal comnets period. I did not see
it in the comnets maillist at the commnets period closure.

All in all, I am inlcined to believe that this document is not part of the
materials that brought us to our recomendation, and therfore would suggest
that it fits bettr as Domainz comments to ICANN on the DNSO recommenation. 

But I will check the dates tiwce and submit to the better judgementnof the NC ;-)

Best regards,

Amadeu