UDRP task force

[Barbara Simons]

It seems to me that the primary problem is that the complainant gets to
select the arbitrator, if there is only one, or two out of the three
arbitrators, if there are three.  This is a fundamental inequity.
Regards,
Barbara

On 9/22/03 12:06 PM, "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:

> 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?