[vote01] RE: VOTE-1999073020

["Johnson, David" <DJohnson@Wilmer.COM>]

-----Original Message-----
From: vote01@dnso.org [mailto:vote01@dnso.org]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 1999 2:35 PM
To: djohnson@wilmer.com
Subject: VOTE-1999073020


Vote Subject:  WG-A
-------------------------------------------------
In relation with Article VI-B 2. d of ICANN Bylaws I consider that


[x] WG-A has produced a set of recommendations that 
    shall be forwarded to the Board of Directors 
    as a community consensus recommendation

[ ] WG-A has produced a set of recommendations that 
    shall NOT be forwarded to the Board of Directors 
    as community consensus recommendations

[ ] WG-A has produced a set of recommendations, among 
    which only the following shall be forwarded 
    as community consensus recommendations:

        [ ] 1
        [ ] 2
        [ ] 3
        [ ] 4
        [ ] 5


commentary:

1)	Procedural Problems. There is no way to determine whether the
recommendations presented here from WG-A represent a "community
consensus
recommendation" without at least significant input from the General
Assembly.  Although the gTLD constituency has voted affirmatively, and
supports the proposal in general, this procedural lapse is significant. 

	  
2)	Partial Dissention. The gTLD constituency agrees in general
that
the recommendations of Chapter 3 and Annex IV & V of the WIPO report of
April 1999 should be implemented as soon as possible ( Recommendation
#1.),
in a generally uniform manner across the current global TLDs (
Recommendation #2). We agree that uniformity should involve the scope of
the
dispute, the timing and procedures involved, and the remedies provided
(Recommendation #3).   We further agree that the initial scope should be
limited to "abusive recommendations" as defined by the WIPO report
(Recommendation #4). Finally, WIPO should be encouraged to provide
further
expertise ( Recommendation #5). 

	We dissent and therefore disagree that any administrative
dispute
resolution (ADR) process should be mandated directly from ICANN upon any
or
all registrars, but should flow from the contractual obligations between
registry and registrar.  No process should be mandated by any entity,
ICANN
or registry, until those registrars who contractually bind their
registrants
to the process are legally satisfied with the procedures involved, and
have
given adequate notice to their registrants. ICANN will not incur any
liability if these procedures are unfair, improperly implemented or
inadequately staffed (Recommendation #1).   Further, such ADR
procedures,
while uniform in most aspects, should allow for variance in fees,
payment,
panel providers, and involvement of the registrars, to the extend such
registrar is willing to accept the possibility in the process. ICANN
should
not be called upon to establish a process for panel providers but leave
it
to the private sector (Recommendations #2 and #3). As clearly enumerated
in
Recommendation #4, substantial procedural problems remain to be
addressed by
the industry of registrars who will operate with these procedures.  To
proceed too quickly is to risk the failure of the procedures, and to
destabilize domain name registration.   Registrars should be given the
time
to draft and implement a practical ADR process based on real world
experience with registration.

David R. Johnson

Please note that you can provide a dissenting opinion in case the
recommenations are forwarded as such to the BoD despite your vote 
to the contrary. These opinions will be attached to the report.

TEXT OF THE REPORT AND RECOMENDATIONS:
     http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990729.WGA-report.html
-------------------------------------------------
.