Re: Re[2]: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 09:49:36AM +0200, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Marylin,
> >
> >One item where I disagree with your interpretation, but I can be wrong..
> >
> >I don't recall that ICANN was ever in a position to say that every 
> >registrar
> >would be free to have their own dispute resolution policies, based on the
> >input received in the White Paper process.  I didn't go back and research
> >it, but if my memory is right,  I believe it was a big issue from the
> >beginning that there be standard ICANN policies, which all accredited
> >registrars would adhere to, to prevent forum shopping. Selecting different
> >resources to implement the standard policies agreed to by ICANN for
> >accredited registrars is indeed a different thing.
> 
> Off my memory, when the applications for the new TLDs were collected, one of 
> the information the applicant Registries had to provide was their dispute 
> resolution policy.

But the comment Marily responded to concerned the original registRARS,
not gTLDs or their applicants:

    Much like they did when originally every registrar was supposed to
    be free to select their own dispute policies, but then in practice
    later were forced to adopt the UDRP. 

> This, IMHO, hinted the possibility of having different mechanisms for 
> different registries: otherwise, ICANN should have stated since the 
> beginning that everybody had to adopt UDRP.
>
> Even in the discussion about the individual applications, the point never 
> came up (incidentally, unlike the failure to separate Registry and 
> Registrar, that was criticized for IOD's .web).
> 
> I still think that it will be a *good thing* to have different policies for 
> different TLDs. In a multicultural, complex world the "one size fits all" is 
> indeed often a simple solution, but seldom the best one.

The different registries *do* have different policies, most of them
stronger than the UDRP.  In fact, the exception to that (.biz) got
considerable flak from the house judiciary committee because they were
inadequate.  (Incidentally, if anyone had thought that the USG policy
was going to provide some kind of haven from UDRP kinds of things,
listening to that tape should dispel that notion quickly.  In fact,
ICANN got beat up for not providing *enough* protection for intellectual
property interests.)

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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