[registrars] Re: Dispute Policy Comments

[StevenCoates@gatewayone.com (Steven Coates)]

Rita
I want to publicly apologize to you.  Now, I can not say that I have been
ignored.  I just read your email.  Thank you.  In my defense, I have not
received any previous correspondence.  Yours is the first.  However, I would
like the committee to reconsidered my comments. They were written from the
perspective of lawyer who has been involved in a number of dispute
resolution court cases.  Their inclusion was not meant to delude the policy,
but rather to ease the litigation problems for registrars that will develop
around the dispute.  Why step in it, if you don't have it.
Steven
-----Original Message-----
From: Rita Rodin <RRODIN@skadden.com>
To: StevenCoates@gatewayone.com <StevenCoates@gatewayone.com>
Date: Friday, September 24, 1999 5:30 PM
Subject: Dispute Policy Comments


Hi Steven - - I received your voicemail this morning.  From your message, it
appears as though you did not receive my email to you (drafted a while back)
wherein I responded to your earlier comments to the Model Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy for Voluntary Adoption by Registrars.  I include
my response to those comments below.

I also note that you are not alone in expressing concerns about the timing
of this process.  I think all of the constituencies feel constrained by the
ICANN timetable, and this has been expressed on numerous occasions to Louis
Touton.

Here is a brief status report on what has occurred regarding the revised
drafts- - registrars that could participate on the call discussed the Policy
this morning, and have scheduled a 9:00 am call on Tuesday to discuss the
draft of the Rules.  I will circulate the conference number for the Tuesday
call shortly.  I hope that you will be able to participate on the call on
Tuesday, and encourage other registrars to do so as well.  In the event that
you have comments so the Policy, feel free to forward them to me.  Thanks
for your continued participation in this process. Feel free to call me with
any further questions or comments.  Regards.

****************************************************************************
*************

As Louie mentioned in his email to you, the ICANN Board at its meeting in
Santiago, Chile resolved that a small drafting committee would assemble the
implementation documents needed to institute a draft dispute policy among
all accredited gTLD registrars as soon as possible.  Consistent with the
Board's resolution, the committee will be looking to articulate practical
implementation points, and avoid making substantial changes to the draft
policy in its current form.  As per Louie's email, it appears as though the
drafting committee will try and consider your comments to the policy as part
of the implementation process, thus I will leave the comments in the hands
of that committee.

Nonetheless, I thought that it might be helpful to respond to your
suggestions point by point based upon prior discussions regarding the
policy.  I hope that you find these comments useful.  Regards.

Section 2, Line 4 - - the first sentence of the section covers registration,
maintenance and renewal, so I believe that the intent was as you suggested,
namely, that the representation should be broader than just registration.

Section 4a and 4b - - these criteria were taken verbatim from WIPO's Report
on domain names and addresses.  The registrars felt that WIPO's ten month
process, in consultation with individuals representing numerous interests,
produced a definition that was at least generally agreeable.  Accordingly,
the registrars did not feel it was appropriate for them to craft another
definition.  Nonetheless, the definition of bad faith registrations is one
of the substantive points to be considered by the drafting committee, so you
may want to review the results of that committee and send your comments at
that time.

Section 4f - - Uniform provider rules are also the charge of the drafting
committee.  I understand that it is intended that the rules state that the
complainant will pay the fees up front.

Section 4g - - You have raised a good point, but the registrars agreed that
it should be in the Registration Agreement, not this policy.

Section 4f - - The registrars do not want to make ANY determinations, good
faith or otherwise, and risk being sued for such determinations.
Accordingly, in the absence of the circumstances listed in 4f, the
registrars will not implement the decision of the panel after a complaint
has been filed.

Section 6 - - Again, the registrars agreed that this language is more
appropriate in the Registration Agreement.

Section 9 - - We think that this point is already addressed in the draft in
the section regarding transfers of a domain name.

------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by the
addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or
confidential information.  If you are not the intended recipient of this
e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me at
(212) 735-3000 and permanently delete the original and any copy of any
e-mail and any printout thereof.