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

[Nicolas Adam]

I agree wholeheartedly with the fact that dialogue and debate (aka 
review) should not be tossed aside repeatedly for the sake of 
practicality. In addition, I do not find the timing to be a bad one.

Those kinds of positions threatens to undermine to very little support 
ICANN has when it comes to its gTLD development plans. They should be 
more careful and realize that there is potentially way more serious 
pressure coming from non-contracted parties and non-state actors then 
they realize. I know its predictable that they don't, but damn ...

For the relative newbie that I am, can someone tell me who the "staff" 
is, generally speaking, and what kind of political concerns do they 
dwell with?

With regard the reference that the UDRP is to adress "cybersquatting" 
.... shouldn't it say that this policy is about something a little less 
narrow? Or is this really the appropriate reference scope for the (UDRP) 
policy?

On the face of it, an expert review could save some time and lead to the 
same conclusion a full review would (e.g. procedural reform), but why 
not do the dancing? I mean, i haven't made my bed or anything, but I can 
surmise that a compromise would likely end-up right around there.

Another newbie question: is ALAC supporting this delay?

Nicolas

On 10/3/2011 8:17 PM, Andrew A. Adams wrote:
> Wendy Seltxzer wrote, quoting ICANN staff:
>> 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.
> The UDRP is clearly a significant plank of ICANN policy in one of its core
> areas of competence. Forget much of what ICANN tries badly to do in empire
> building. Running the IP address allocation (hasn't that been a blast with
> IPv4 allocations running out before IPv6 was broadly adopted) and running the
> domain name resolution system are the primary roles of ICANN. UDRP is one of
> the most important (and badly broken) elements of that system. So the staff
> thinks that the primary mechanism for policy development should be bypassed
> when reviewing one of the most important elements of one of ICANN's two core
> missions? Absolutely ridiculous. A PDP is clearly needed since it was the
> lack of such inclusive processes that led to the current broken, biased UDRP
> in the first place. The URS has sufficiently different needs (there are only
> a few organisations and almost no individuals who will put up minimum
> $100,000 dollars to run a TLD yet there are billions who could afford the $10
> to register a domain name for a year) that waiting for it to be in operation
> for eighteen months before reviewing the UDRP is simply another delay in
> fixing a broken system that has damaged the Internet for a decade.
>
>