UDRP review

[Marc Schneiders]

Thanks for your detailed reply, which is most helpful in pointing out
past decisions to actually discuss the UDRP at GNSO council level. I
am more than willing to press the issue there, if I do not hear any
voices against a review, because we may lose more (e.g. additional
prtected names, so-called WIPO II) than we can possibly gain.

Thanks again!

Marc

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, at 14:29 [=GMT+0900], Chun Eung Hwi wrote:

> 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)
> >
>
>