[council] ICANN NCDNHC RESOLUTION #2

[Dany Vandromme <vandrome@renater.fr>]

After the ICANN Marina Del Rey meeting, the NCDNHC went through a full
on-line vote, to approve (or eventually dismiss) the resolution texts, which
were elaborated during the constituency meeting (Nov 13th) and presented to
the board during the Open forum Meeting (Nov 15th).

You will find below the text of the resolution concerning the UDRP.

On-line vote result for this resolution is:
    YES: 33
    NO:  7
    ABS: 3

At the time of the vote, 156 non commercial organizations were entitled to
vote (with 2 vote for large organizations, and 1 vote for small
organizations).

Thanks for transmitting this info to the board members.

Best regards
DV

Member of the NCDNHC adcom
Member of the Names Council

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dany VANDROMME                    |  Directeur du GIP RENATER

                Reseau National de Telecommunications
         pour la Technologie, l'Enseignement et la Recherche

                                  |  ENSAM
Tel   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 30     |  151 Boulevard de l'Hopital
Fax   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 31     |  75013 Paris
E-mail: Dany.Vandromme@renater.fr |  FRANCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------


RESOLUTION #2

ICANN-NCDNHC, Nov 13th, 2000

Resolution on the UDRP

1.The party filing a UDRP complaint should not have the exclusive right
to determine which arbitration organization will hear the complaint.

2.The DNSO should create a working group that is tasked with providing
guidelines for the UDRP to make the process work better, consistent with the
public's rights to use words in domain names. The chair of the working group
should be a representative of the non-commercial constituency

3.The expansion of the TLD name space, particularly for differentiated
TLD names, makes it important for UDRP panels not to assume that rights in a
SLD for one TLD provide automatic rights in all TLD strings. Several UDRP
panels have decided that a service mark, in any country, automatically gives
the owner of the service mark exclusive rights to .com, .net and org. This
way of thinking should be remedied and not expanded onto the new TLD name
spaces. Also, some TLD strings, by their very nature, will require special
modifications of the UDRP approach if the UDRP is applied at all. In
restricted TLD only bona fide entities within the targeted community, might
bring complaints against each other. The UDRP should
not become a weapon against civil society.