Fwd: [council] Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP

[Wendy Seltzer]

Council just received this report in which staff reiterate their
recommendation against UDRP review, and suggest a "group of experts"
implementation recommendations instead.


> While periodic assessment of policies can be beneficial to guard
> against unexpected results or inefficient process, the GNSO Council
> should consider the perspective of the majority of the ICANN
> community, and the advice of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC),
> and the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), with regard to whether
> such review is necessary or warranted. Although properly within the
> scope of the GNSO’s mandate, Staff recommends that a PDP on the UDRP
> not be initiated at this time. Staff recommends that a PDP be delayed
> until after the New gTLD Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) has
> been in operation for at least eighteen months. Doing so would allow
> the policy process to be informed by data regarding the effectiveness
> of the URS, which was modelled on the UDRP, to address the problem of
> cybersquatting. 

However, if the GNSO Council determines that the UDRP
> should be reviewed immediately, Staff suggests that the GNSO Council
> consider alternatives to commencing a PDP for addressing this issue.
> After carefully evaluating the issues and concerns expressed by the 
> ICANN community regarding the UDRP, many of those concerns relate to
> process issues associated with the implementation of the UDRP, rather
> than the language of the policy itself. The GNSO Council should
> consider, in lieu of commencing a PDP, recommending that ICANN
> convene a small group of experts representing the different community
> viewpoints to produce recommendations to improve the process or
> implementation of the UDRP policy as an initial step. These “expert”
> process recommendations, to the extent they target changes in the
> behavior of the UDRP providers, could be implemented after they are 
> recommended by the GNSO Council, and approved by the ICANN Board. If
> after consideration of such expert recommendations, there continues
> to be a desire to conduct a more thorough review of the UDRP, or if
> the recommendations are intended to affect the obligations of the
> contracted parties, the GNSO Council could subsequently initiate a
> more focused PDP at that time.

We should think about how we'd like to respond. I do not think a "group
of experts" is a fair or suitable alternative to review.

--Wendy


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 14:00:56 -0700
From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam at icann.org>
To: council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>

Dear All,

As requested by the GNSO Council, I am pleased to submit for your review
and consideration, the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP.

This Final Report takes into account the many submissions received
during the Public Comment Forum on the Preliminary Issue Report, as well
as the GAC Statement on the UDRP recently delivered to the GNSO Council.

We look forward to further dialogue with the Council regarding the
recommendations contained in the Final Issue Report in Dakar.

All the Best,

Margie
_________

Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN
_________

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: UDRP Final Issue Report -v1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 2821423 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111003/86f47654/attachment.pdf>