[council] Re: UDRP interim committee

[kstubbs@digitel.net (Digitel - Ken Stubbs)]

wording of the questions seems a bit "slanted" here wouldn't you say
milton...

clearly the UDRP needs to be reviewed and this was mandated on it's
inception... i would just prefer the basis of evaluation and the related
queries be a bit more "unbiased"

ken stubbs


----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
To: <kstubbs@corenic.org>; <rogerc@netsol.com>; <orobles@nic.mx>;
<mueller@syracuse.edu>; <CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>
Cc: <council@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 3:24 PM
Subject: UDRP interim committee



UDRP Committee members:

FYI, the Noncommercial Constituency passed the following resolution,
at its physical meeting in Melbourne, and later ratified through online
vote, regarding the UDRP review:

Resolution #1
In any evaluation of the UDRP the NCC in Melbourne recommends the
study answer the following questions:

a. Do the panel members make overreaching decisions with respect to what is
confusingly similar?

b. Do panel members make poor decisions on rights in generic names?

c. Do panel members err on the issue of whether or not criticism, parody or
comparative advertising are "legitimate" interests in the use of product or
company name in a domain name?

d. Do panel members misapply or miuse the definition of "bad faith"?

Resolution #2:
ICANN should ask an outside independent consulting group to evaluate
the UDRP.