RE: [nc-udrp] "UDRP Review and Evaluation, Terms of Reference" document

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

Does this Task Force's time line change in light of ICANN's recent
annoucement regarding the agenda change in November to a pure "security"
format?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nc-udrp@dnso.org [mailto:owner-nc-udrp@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> DNSO Secretariat
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 6:49 AM
> To: nc-udrp@dnso.org
> Subject: [nc-udrp] "UDRP Review and Evaluation, Terms of Reference"
> document
>
>
>
>
> The "UDRP Review and Evaluation, Terms of Reference" document is in
>
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.NC-tor-UDRP-Review-Evaluation.html
>
> DNSO Secretariat
>
> --
> ICANN/DNSO
>
>                UDRP Review and Evaluation, Terms of Reference
>
> UDRP Review and Evaluation, Terms of Reference
>
> 20 June 2001
>
> Amended and adopted 29 June 2001.
>
> Amended with the NC motion voted on 11 August 2001.
>
> Initial version in 2001.NC-tor-UDRP-Review-Evaluation.v0.html.
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The ICANN Board resolved at its October 24, 1999 special meeting
> to proceed
> with the implementation of a uniform dispute resolution policy (UDRP) set
> forth in its Resolution 99.81 using the implementation documents
> approved in
> its Resolution 99.112 (see
> http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-24oct99.htm).
>
> The ICANN Board further resolved that the President and General Counsel of
> ICANN monitor the ongoing operation of the administrative
> dispute-resolution
> mechanism described in Paragraph 4 of the UDRP and to make such
> adjustments
> to the UDRP?s implementation from time to time as they determine
> appropriate, including adjustments to the terms and extent of provisional
> approval of dispute-resolution service providers.[1]
>
> The DNSO Names Council has since adopted in its 2001-2002 business plan a
> review and evaluation of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, and the
> establishment of an Interim Committee to propose terms of reference for an
> NC task force or other group to conduct such review and evaluation (see
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001-02.NCbusinessplan.html).
>
> The interim committee consists of the following Names Council members:
> Caroline Chicoine (IP), Milton Mueller (NCDNH), Oscar Alejandro
> Robles Garay
> (CCTLD), Miriam Sapiro[2] (gTLD) and Ken Stubbs (Registrar). The interim
> committee has met via e-mail and their discussions are archived at
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/tor-udrp/Arc00/maillist.html.
> Based on these
> discussions, the Interim Committee proposes the following UDRP review and
> evaluation schedule:
>
> June 29 - August 14
>
> The interim committee shall constitute a Task Force to create a
> questionnaire to solicit public comment through a bottom up,
> consensus-building DNSO process regarding various aspects of the existing
> UDRP. The Task Force shall work on the basis of consensus and not majority
> vote. However, to the extent no consensus can be reasonably reached on an
> item, majority vote shall rule with all dissenting views being made of
> record.
>
> The interim committee shall solicit one individual from each of the
> following interest groups to be a part of this Task Force:
>
>      Business Constituency
>      ccTLD Constituency
>      gTLD Constituency
>      IP Constituency
>      ISP Constituency
>      NCDNH Constituency
>      Registrar Constituency
>      Complainant (or representative)
>      CPR Panelist
>      CPR Provider
>      eResolution Panelist
>      eResolution Provider
>      NAF Panelist
>      NAF Provider
>      Respondent (or representative)
>      WIPO Panelist
>      WIPO Provider
>      GA Member not already included in any of the above groups
>      Independent ADR expert
>      Independent academic expert
>
> Once constituted, the Task Force shall seek a volunteer to Chair the Task
> Force. If only one individual volunteers, he or she will be deemed the
> Chair. If more than each member of the Task Force shall cast one vote for
> one of the volunteers with the person receiving the most votes
> being deemed
> the Chair.
>
> The questionnaire shall be created with an eye toward identifying
> potential
> areas for reform, including without limitation:
>
>      - forum shopping
>      - publication of complaints and answers
>      - appeals
>      - reverse domain name hijacking
>      - quality of decisions
>      - speed of decisions
>      - precedential affect of decisions within and outside of UDRP
>      - costs
>      - continuity of decisions among and within panels
>      - res judicata effect of decisions within and outside the UDRP
>      - requirements for bad faith (i.e., domain name registration
> and/or use)
>      - fairness of Provider's supplemental rules
>      - ability to amend complaint
>
> While the questionnaire will be in English, to the extent
> feasible, the Task
> Force will attempt to have it translated in other languages.
>
> August 15 - September 15
>
> Questionnaire submitted to public for response at least via
> ICANN's website,
> and via each UDRP provider's website where permitted.
>
> August 15 - October 31
>
> Task Force reviews results of questionnaire, as well as any third party
> studies directed to the UDRP including without limitation the Syracuse
> University study, the Max Plank Institute study and the Rose Communication
> study. Based on the results of the questionnaire and those
> studies, the Task
> Force shall prepare a Report summarizing the areas identified as needing
> reform and the recommendations to implement such reform. Again, the Task
> Force will attempt to translate this Report from English into as
> many other
> languages as possible.
>
> November 1- November 11
>
> The Task Force's Report forwarded to Names Council for review.
>
> November 12
>
> Names Council votes on Report at ICANN's annual meeting in Los Angeles.
>
> November 13 - December 13
>
> Task Force creates implementation schedule.
>
> -------------------------
>
> [1] The Board also resolved to request the General Counsel, with the
> assistance of staff, to prepare a summary of matters arising in
> the drafting
> process that should be considered as possible future refinements
> to the UDRP
> and to transmit that list to the DNSO for its study of those
> maters, with a
> view toward submission to the Board for the year 2000 of any
> recommendations
> the DNSO may have for such refinements.  To date, the DNSO has
> not received
> such a summary.
>
> [2] Miriam Sapiro is substituting for Roger Cochetti.
>
>                  Information from:  (c) DNSO Names Council
>