UDRP review

[Chun Eung Hwi]

Dear Marc Schneiders,


This is very appropriate and timely question. I fully support your
suggestion. In reflecting my last attendance in GNSO meeting, UDRP review
issue had survived up to last Carthage meeting agenda. But it had not been
discussed there because of heavy burden of Whois TFs and their setting.

Nevertheless, in looking at minutes of GNSO, we can find out Bruce had
mentioned it once more in Carthage meeting. That minute is located at
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-29oct03.shtml

There, Bruce mentioned as follows;

"Bruce Tonkin, in considering the options open to Council, noted that in
the next 6 to 12 months, besides the WHOIS issues, the introduction of New
Registry services and the UDRP would have to be prioritized in terms of
Council and ICANN staff resources. After some discussion the Council
identified the following priority order for issues in 2004: registry
services, WHOIS, new gtlds, enforcement, and UDRP."

As you know, this comment is based on staff's issue
report(http://www.icann.org/gnso/issue-reports/udrp-review-report-01aug03.htm)
and some picture of constituencies' priority
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/udrp/table-udrp-issue.shtml)

I am not so sure how we could effectively initiate PDP for UDRP review, at
this moment, but it should be taken very cautiously and wisely given the
possible strong refusal or intentional negligence from other
constituencies. I think we should get some support from others out of our
constituency.


Chun Eung Hwi

------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82)  2-2166-2205
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667
Seoul, 158-600, Korea       | eMail:   chun at peacenet.or.kr
------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> A review of the UDRP process was promised for the end of 2000, when
> the UDRP was introduced in 1999. So far it did not materialize.
>
> The UDRP has done some good. It has made it easier for those whose
> trademarks were abused by people after quick gain (so-called
> cybersquatters) to reach a speedy and cheap solution to their problem.
> In more than a few cases, however, the UDRP resulted in decisions,
> people losing a domain, without any real (or even imagined) trademark
> infringement or abuse. In some of these cases there were even free
> speech matters totally ignored by the UDRP 'judges'.
>
> In any legal system some people will be unhappy with some decisions.
> In the UDRP though, many people are unhappy with more than a few
> decisions. There is no real review process in the system. That
> explains part of it, but now I am already pre-empting the discussion I
> would like to start on this list.
>
> The fact that the UDRP review process did not come about, has more
> reasons than just negligence on the part of some bodies within ICANN.
> The interested parties probably feel that the whole thing is too
> dangerous. Rather keep what we have, though imperfect and sometimes
> unjust, than open up a can of worms??
>
> I would like to start some discussion within our constituency, whether
> or not it is a good idea to press ICANN to fulfil its promise to
> review the UDRP. I would like to bring up the topic in the Names
> Council, but only if I am not the only one who thinks there may be
> something to gain.
>
> So shoot, please.
>
> --
> Marc Schneiders (GNSO council rep)
>