<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] Regarding UDRP task force
Hello
All,
I
received the following correspondence from a member of the UDRP task
force.
Given
the length of time since the creation of the original UDRP task force, it is
probably time to revisit the task force.
We
could review the task force terms of reference, and perhaps ask constituencies
(and task force members) if they want to update their membership of the task
force.
Regards,
Bruce
Tonkin
Mr. Bruce Tonkin
Chair
ICANN Generic Names
Supporting Organization
Dear Mr.
Tonkin:
I
am writing as a member of the UDRP Review Task Force and as a person who has
worked, in various ways, to assist both ICANN and the UDRP to function as
efficiently and legitimately as possible. I have been reading the minutes of
past GNSO meetings and even listened to the recordings of some GNSO
teleconferences. I am prompted to write this message because I noticed that the
agenda for the GNSO meeting in Rio next week does not include anything about the
UDRP review. Instead, the UDRP review is listed as an agenda item for the
teleconference in late April. This concerns me because it suggests that you and
other members of the Council may be unaware that the Task Force has essentially
stopped
functioning.
If
I bear some responsibility for the fact that the Task Force has done no work on
a report or even a draft report, so be it. I have urged the Chair of the Task
Force, as the task force archives will show <http://dnso.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/mail10.html>, to establish a process for the Task
Force to discuss the many different issues, some large, some small, that a
review of the UDRP should involve. About a month ago, I wrote to the Chair and
indicated that if he did not do this, I would submit my own assessment of the
UDRP at the June ICANN meeting in Montreal. If necessary, I will still do this
but I wanted to alert you as well that there is no forward movement, indeed no
current activity at all, in this task force’s work. This reflects poorly on
myself and other members of the Task Force, on ICANN, and on the
GNSO.
It
is possible that other Task Force members will see progress where I see none.
Perhaps you can inquire of some of them concerning this. All I know is that
during the DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 3 October 2002 <http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20021003.NCteleconf-minutes.html>
you yourself stated that “the question is whether there is a process moving
forward on the UDRP and if not, it should be brought to the Names Council for a
decision.” The minutes then indicate the following exchange:
- Bruce Tonkin suggested looking at the Whois task force, where a report was
put out for public comment having summarised the survey findings and
preliminary recommendations made, and urged the task force to produce a report
that used as input the results of the survey as well as the expertise and
experience of the task force members in using the UDRP process. The
alternative was to close the task force and start again. J. Scott Evans was in
favour of maintaining the current task force.
- Discussion was in favour of using the value added expertise in the task
force in addition to the survey.
- Bruce Tonkin suggested putting this on the agenda for the November
meeting, and that the task force establishes meeting dates so that a report
and initial recommendations can be developed for discussion at that meeting.
It
is now five months later and we have no scheduled meeting dates. I truly hope
that Mr. Evans, the Task Force Chair, is in good health and that it is not some
misfortune that accounts for the lack of any communication between him and the
Task Force in more than a month. Unfortunately, if you will look at the
archives, you will see that there is no reason, other than lack of leadership,
why nothing is happening. With proper leadership, I believe that the Task Force
could provide the Council by June with a list of items concerning the UDRP that
have been looked at and discussed, a list of recommendations for change about
which consensus exists, and a list of other recommendations favored or not
favored by a majority. If the GNSO does not intervene, in June we will be no
further along than we are now.
I might suggest that members of the
Council look at <http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.NC-tor-UDRP-Review-Evaluation.html> where the Task Force received an
extension so that further work on the survey could be done. A timeline was then
laid out in which the Task Force was asked to provide its report to the Council
in March. This has not occurred and, indeed, the March I have just referred to
is March, 2002, not March, 2003. My point is that the GNSO must accept the fact
that, without some intervention, this task force is not even on the road to
completing its work by March, 2004.
The last report Mr. Evans gave to
you, in November I believe, indicated a commitment to have a draft report to you
by the Rio meeting. As I have stated, there is no such report. Most of the time
devoted to the UDRP review during that teleconference concerned not substantive
issues but questions about membership and representation. I do not wish to
minimize the importance of membership but the make-up of the task force is
irrelevant if nothing gets done. Indeed, at some point the current members will
decide that they do not want to be associated with a sham or a farce and there
will be no task force at
all.
I was
willing to join the Task Force because the UDRP is an interesting exercise in
dispute resolution and I thought I might contribute to a serious discussion of
what, if any, changes in the UDRP should be recommended. I continue to believe
in the importance of this but I have lost faith that any kind of serious review
will occur if there is not some intervention on your part. As you pointed out in
October, other task forces have conducted themselves much more systematically
and productively. I do not enjoy writing letters like this but it is not clear
to me that the members of the GNSO are aware of the serious lack of progress and
activity. You may or may not accept my assessment of what has been occurring but
please go through the emails at http://dnso.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/mail6.html and determine for yourself what the
Task Force has been doing or has not been
doing.
Thank
you for giving this your attention. I would be most grateful if you would send
copies to the other members of the
Council.
Sincerely,
Ethan
Katsh
Professor and Director
Center for Information
Technology
and Dispute Resolution
University of
Massachusetts
Amherst, MA
413-545-5879
katsh@legal.umass.edu
http://www.umass.edu/dispute
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|