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

[Dan Steinberg <synthesis@videotron.ca>]

I think we all agree that there is a need for reform to the UDRP.  This need
continues as long as the process is in place.
So I would say the time line should not be swayed by the change in the ICANN
official agenda.  If the iCANN board feels it has to make a public display such
as changing the agenda and cause people to fly all over the place to work on
something outside their areas of expertise, fine.  When they realize they are
not DNS security experts and get back to things they can handle, our report will
(hopefully) be there.

Given that we are a bit late in starting, it seems logical that our timeline
might slip a bit accordingly.

FYI those not technically inclined should know that the internet has functioned
quite well all these years with gaping security holes that used to be called
'the internet's seven dirty secrets'.  It has functioned all this time because
anyone who bothered to study it and understand it at that level had too much
respect by the time they were in a position to do any harm.  The US Department
of Commerce is aware (on record) of some of the holes. I know because I briefed
Ira Magaziner on them back in 1998. (I can brief anyone off-line that is
interested on a few of the holes).   Why am bringing this up?  Because in
comparison, the UDRP seems to have been designed to be 'easy-to-use' which is an
admirable feature. Unfortunately that feature also seems to make it easy to
ab-use as well.

Our terms of refrence include but are not limited to, such things as:
       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

It seems evident to me that those who created this task force felt that the
above were issues it might be possile to address.  We can do something here.
Shall we get to work?



"Michael D. Palage" wrote:

> 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
> >

--
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin  phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec  fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca