RE: Re[2]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dhc2@dcrocker.net]
|> Sent: Tuesday, 10 April 2001 12:59 AM
|> To: dassa@dhs.org
|> Cc: ga@dnso.org
|> Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes
|>
|>
|> At 02:21 AM 4/9/2001, Dassa wrote:
|> >This is one area that the UDRP really disappoints me.  It should be a
mechanism
|> >to a handle ALL domain disputes and not just trademark issues.
|>
|> It is important to crawl before walking.  The UDRP is rather experimental,
|> given its global implication.  Hence it is important to start with the
|> narrowest mechanism possible, to limit the damage if there are serious
|> problems.  (Please see your previous postings for examples of such concerns.)
|>
|> There were attempts to expand the scope of the UDRP but they were -- very
|> wisely -- resisted.

It would seem to me that there exists a serious flaw in the thinking behind the
UDRP and what led up to it.  Any initial resolution policy should have been
implemented to deal with internal matters.  By that, I mean domain name disputes
between existing holders.  At the present time with the UDRP, we have a
concentration allowing resolution on external issues.  Any experimental process
should have been initiated on very specific internal issues.  This
"experimental" UDRP was also initiated against one of the larger and more
problematic issues.  Not a sound procedure.

It is also a process that is being continously expanded without improvements
being implemented against the known flaws.  Again not a sound procedure.

I would say the UDRP has attempted to start off running and is picking up speed
without going through any of the normal auditing and review processes.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.


--
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