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

[Konstantinos Komaitis]

You all know where I stand on the issue of the UDRP - I think the ICANN staff is trying to downplay whether the UDRP is in need for a review. Since the very beginning the ICANN staff has been negative towards initiating a PDP for the UDRP, even though in Singapore the majority of the SGs (except of course the IPC and the BC) were open to a PDP of the UDRP (some even suggested I remember that the word PDP is quite tricky, so let's use something else). But whatever terminology we use here, the point is that it is important to have a process that will determine whether the UDRP needs to be reviewed. And, I think we need to make this point: a PDP (or whatever else) does not mean that the UDRP will be reviewed. It only means that the working group will determine whether the problems surrounding the UDRP are enough to warrant its review. (I will be highly surprised if the WG determines that the UDRP does not need a review, but this is another story). Needless to say that with the GAC fiasco regarding the letter they sent to the GNSO, it is even more important to go through this process in a transparent and accountable way. So, I would like to request our councillors to support the PDP on the issue of the UDRP and not the formation of a group of experts. The ICANN community needs to be involved and all interests should be represented on an equal footing.

KK

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

Senior Lecturer,
Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
University of Strathclyde,
The Law School,
Graham Hills building, 
50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA 
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org

-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Nicolas Adam
Sent: Τρίτη, 4 Οκτωβρίου 2011 3:29 πμ
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [council] Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP

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.
>
>