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

[Andy Gardner <andy@navigator.co.nz>]

At 12:05 pm -0700 4/11/01, Kent Crispin wrote:
>>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.
>
>?? There was a very long and large scale review process, international in
>scope, and with multiple revisions along the way.

Very good Kent.

Now show us (within those multiple revisions, after the very long and large
scale review process) which part of the UDRP allows complaints to be filed
- and investigated -  against providers that contravene the UDRP rules, or
panelists that ignore the rules AND law in their findings.

ICANN managed to get "all care, no responsibility" clauses in to the rules
for both itself, the providers, and the panelists. So there's no safety net
whatsoever for anyone else involved.

How surprising.

-- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
--
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