Re: [ga] Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review Questionnaire.

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

John and all assembly members,

  I agree with most of your comments below here John.  It would seem
that concentration on the areas of disagreement in the language, structure
and policies of the current WIPO/ICANN UDRP would be much
more fruitful, although I am quite sure the discussion would be also
very spirited if not down right ugly from some sectors of interest.
None the less these are the areas that desperately need to be revised,
or the perception seems to be so given recent court decisions both
in the US and elsewhere.

  Given the current and I would contend long standing misconception
of the ecommerce as well as Domain Name registration practice and
past policy, the ICANN/WIPO UDRP is not, and has not adequately
addressed any of the concerns of registrants adequately, fairly or
even amicably.  The courts are beginning to see this much more
clearly, but always have had problems with the present ICANN/WIPO
UDRP.  The other structural problem that will no doubt raise it's ugly head
will be the Registration Contract for Registrar Accreditation by ICANN
if or when the present UDRP is redone or modified precipitously.

  Therefore it is our opinion that a Joint WG consisting of all of the
Constituencies, the DNSO GA and the ICANN Staff should be
put together with a time window adequate enough to make some
serious recommendations, outside of the WIPO sphere of influence.
Perhaps one GAC member should be in this WG as well.  In any
event and open forum for such a WG should be provided where
all of the discussions and debates can be hashed out.

John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> From: "Katrina Burchell" <Katrina.Burchell@unilever.com>
>
> > I think we should start to discuss how we are going to analyse the answers
> > between us
>
> Given the composition of this group, and the level of familiarity and
> perspectives on various aspects of the Policy among us, I would expect that
> the results would be viewed through the lenses of our experiences.
> Otherwise, the group would preferably be composed of persons unfamiliar with
> the policy.
>
> If the results indicate clear recurring themes, criticisms or proposals, then
> such matters would merit more discussion than other issues where there is no
> apparent dissension.  Obviously we don't need to discuss things about which
> we all agree, but one hopes that lively, or even passionate, disagreement is
> something we are equipped to deal with.  Uniformity of opinions may be
> pleasant, but it is also dull and unproductive.
>
> Irreconcilable differences can be resolved with pistols at dawn where
> necessary.  There is a contingent among the Task Force which has announced
> its discontinuation of participation in administration of the Policy, and
> fired a rather public parting shot at the manner in which the Policy is
> administered (the ammunition appears to have been "sour grape shot").  One
> wonders about the value of future recommendations on the part of those who
> have no future plans to participate in the results.  On the other hand, such
> recommendations might be considered to be more "objective" since they are
> based on experience and obviously not attributable to a present pecuniary
> interest.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html