Dear qestion-b sub-group,
First of all, let me apologize for having failed so far to provide any
guidance or impulse to our sub-group. Icould provide you lots of excuses and
explanations, but i am sure you all prefer not to hear/read them ....
In any case, I really do think our work should be rather stragightforward. In
fact we all build in tons of previous mails, and a couple of whole
"processes", at least. I guess that everybody taht is in favour of an DRP as
an alternative to court litigation favours an "uniform" one, while those
opposing this concept in fact oppose the notion of a "mandatory" DRP iteself,
uniform or not. Randy seems to be a somehwat original position between this
two poles,, but as he sadi in his early mail, his job is troublemaking ;-).
I would like proposing to you all (including Randy, veven if we alrady know
that your positon is a global "no") to answer the follwong detailed questions:
* 1. Do we need an uniform DRP at all?
Assumption: we face now a world of non-uniform (differenctiated) dispute
resolutions mechanisms: worlwide courts and legal systems. If we are to build
a DRP as an alternative to court litigation, this should be uniform. If not,
it would be a perfect waste of time and will leave us in the same level of
conflituality and insatisfaction that has been the comon plac e during the
last three years.
* 2. Does a DRP need to be gTLD-based or uniform accross gTLDs?
Assumtpion: "unfirom" does not imply "universal". Equal thigns should be
treaten equally,; differnt situations desserve different treatments. At least,
uniform means unfiorm for each gTLD. At most, it means uniform accross all
possible gTLDs.
* 3. Does a UDP imply just uniform material rules or also procedural ones?
Assumption: Uniform in itself means not that much. At least, it means having
the same material, substantial rules (ie: what is cubersquatting; what are the
possible determinations etc). At ost, it menas that procedural rules ar 4e
exaclty the same (terms; fees; rules of procedure etc).
* 4. Is a UDP compatible with multiple ADR service providers? Is a single
ADR-SP a better choice?
Assumption: Uniform or not, DRP can be administrated by just one DRP-SP (for
instance: WIPO) or multple DRP-SPs applying the same rules (for instnce: WIPO,
ICC; UNCITRAL, AAA,-...). Either each registrar/rgistry chooses one possible
DRP-SP or there is an ICANN-approved list of UDR-SP common to all registration
authorities. The question then is "cho makes the choice?
* 5. Should a UDP be registry-based or registrar-based?
Assumption: we can achive similar results by having a single dispute policy
accrosss all registrars (ie, x number of identical DRPs) or having just one
single DRP at the TLD level (in principle, at the registry level, but a single
registry could in principle have two separate policies if they are to run two
kinds of gTLDs that we might beleive desserve differnet SRPs, even if this is
not the case today).
Well, please shot at it. Porpose new quetions if you think I missed some
improtnat ones, or point out whxihc ones are not relevant. But please bear in
mind that our duty is to answer whether the propsoed DRP should be unifor m or
not. Considerations about the DRP being mandatory or not, alternative to
courts or not, or even being needed or not are somehow outn of the scope of
this sub-hroup and hsould better be dealt by the WGA as a whole.
Best regards.
Amadeu
PS: Please feel free to distribute this lists and ask as actively as you ccan
input form any party. We are the ones charge with drafting the anser, not at
all the only ones deemed to answer.