Re: [question-b] Apologies, and homework

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

> * 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.

it is not yet clear to me that a single uniform policy solves enough of
the problems we see in the current system to just leap into it.  does it
significantly reduce the capture of 'good' names by one segment of the
space?

> 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 place during the last three years.

this is not yet entirely clear to me.  e.g. i can envison a very minimal
domain name conflict resolution policy (dncrp) which covers a minimum base
(prohibit illegal acts, whatever that means, and define cybersquatting)
and yet has add-ons which may vary between registrars.  so what is the
absolute minimum uniform dncrp which is really needed?

> * 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?

currently, we have the courts.  i have not yet been educated why, when
given a possibly new set of rules, the current adjudicators can not be
trusted to apply them.  why do we need to enthrone a whole new set of
judges?

> * 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).

given that we hope registries can be highly automated, made simpler,
smaller, and maybe some day distributed, it seems to me that the registrar
is the place one wants to play with policy.  Let the registry become a
distributed database.

randy