UDRP task force

[Milton Mueller]

Hello, 

the GNSO Council is finally getting around to assessing and possibly revising the UDRP. The Council has asked the constituencies to prioritize 5 issues related to the UDRP from a staff report listing 20 issues. 
http://www.icann.org/gnso/issue-reports/udrp-review-report-01aug03.htm 

Here is the list. I would disregard issues 1 and 2, which are not really policy issues. I will send my take on the "top five" later. --MM

>(1) Should there be improved centralized, searchable access to
>administrative panel decisions? XX
>
>(2) Should complainant and respondent filings be publicly available? XX
>
>(3) Should complainants and respondents be allowed to amend and/or
>supplement their filings?
>
>(4) Should the provider and panel selection processes be modified to
>address concerns about potential conflicts of interest?
>
>(5) Should standards for accrediting providers and panelists be
>promulgated?
>
>(6) Should transfers of proceedings between providers be permitted? 
>
>(7) Should refunds of providers' fees in the event of settlement be
>mandatory and standardized?
>
>(8) Should the notice requirements be amended?
>
>(9) Should the procedure for implementing orders to transfer
>registrations be amended?
>
>(10) Should administrative panel decisions be subject to internal
>appellate review?
>
>(11) Should the policy be changed to require registrars to wait until
>appeal deadlines expire before taking action in response to court
>orders?
>
>(12) Should the policy be amended with respect to protection for
>non-registered marks?
>
>(13) Should the policy be amended to provide guidance regarding the
>interpretation of "confusing similarity"?
>
>(14) Should multiple complaints be allowed concerning the same
>registration and registrant?
>
>(15) Should the policy address the question of whether "holding"
>constitutes "use"?
>
>(16) Should "settlement negotiation" communications be excluded as
>permissible evidence of bad faith?
>
>(17) Should complainants be required to post a bond and/or pay a 
>penalty in order to deter "reverse domain-name hijacking"?
>
>(18) Should the policy expressly include affirmative defenses?
>
>(19) Should administrative panel decisions have precedential effect?
>
>(20) Should "cancellation" (deletion of the registration - allowing
>subsequent re-registration by anybody) continue to be an available
>remedy?