[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ga] Santiago DNSO GA Schedule - Is a full day needed ?

Michael and all,

  Your comments are substantially correct IMHO.  This current pNC
which very legitimacy is questionable, and any working groups that are formed
or otherwise in operation cannot arrive at any kind of a consensus as the
pNC is not an elected body, which is was one of the "Resolutions" or rather
I should say "Edicts" that the ICANN (Initial?) Interim Board determined
in Berlin.

Michael Froomkin wrote:

> This is a travesty.
> This text is far in excess of what WIPO suggested.  It trespasses on the
> work of other working groups.  It is substantively unfair, and makes not
> even a mention of fairness or justice.
> I strenuously object.
> >
> > The DNSO recommends the adoption and implementation of a uniform  Dispute
> > Resolution Policy.  Such  DRP should be uniform accross current gTLDs,
> > approved by ICANN and implemented on a gTLD-wide level in a uniform way.
> >
> > Uniformity should affect both material or substantive rules as well as
> Substantive rules have no place in this scheme.
> > procedural rules with an effect on substantive rights of the parties. Some
> what is a "procedural rule with an effect on substantive rights"?  Would
> that be - "better read your email, because if you don't answer in 10
> days you lose your domain name"?
> > minor, administrative, differences could be implemented in procedures followed
> > by different uDRP Service Providers. In this regard we recommend that ICANN
> This is a violation of competition law (anti-trust law).
> > establishes an accreditation process for DRP Service providers based on
> > objective criteria, and that all accredited DRP Service Providers should be
> > incorporated by the Registration Authorities in their Domain Name Registration
> > Agreeemnts with registrants.
> I don't know what the above means.  If it means that ICANN should have a
> role in picking arbitral authorities it is objectionable on the grounds
> that ICANN has no relevant competence.
> >
> > +++
> >
> > This uDRP is to be viewed as an alternative to litigation, as a fast,
> > inexpensive and Internet-friendly alternative (at least in relative terms) to
> > wordlwide legal systems and jurisdictions.
> What a nice sentiment.  In fact of course, it should be viewed for what
> it actually is, not for what it proponents hope to sell it as.
> I have explained in great detail how the proposal by WIPO will harm the
> interests of registrants.  So far there is no working group with the
> charge of fixing these problems.
> >
> > The main goals of such a uDRP would be increasing legal certainty, providing a
> Would asking that justice and fairness be among the main goals be too
> radical a request?
> > solution in cases where multijurisdictional conflicts prevent actuall
> > court-based dispute resolution and prevent forum shopping.  In this regard is
> > it viewes as an altrnative, not a substitute for Court litigation, which
> > should remain open to the parties.
> But in fact, court litigation is not open to the losing registrant in a
> vast % of cases. What is the point of repeating this misleading
> statement all the time?  Except to mislead people?
> >
> > Even if the DNSO remains open to consider gTLD-specific DRPs, or variations
> > thereof for future for certain new gTLDs in light of possible specific uses,
> > characteristics or charters, we recommned a uniform DRP accross the curent
> > three gTLDs regrding both their undifferentiated use and the nature of the DRP
> > being recommended. Moreover, such a uDRP should be more than a series of
> > similar or even identical policies proposed by each registrar, a gTLD-wide
> > (or, in the current situation, a registry.wide) DRP approved by ICANN.
> >
> > Neither registries nor registrars should be involved in actual administration
> > of such policy. In this regard we beleive that ICANN should accredit DRP
> > Service providers among specialized dispute-resolution insitutions, accrding
> This is unacceptable and unwarranted and does not represent a consensus
> of the working group.  I most strenuously object.
> I further submit that any procedure which claims this report is the
> result of a consensus of the working group in which I participated in
> seriously flawed.
> > to a set of objective cirteria. Both material, substantive, rules and the
> > procedural ones that affect substantive rights of the parties (deadlines;
> > notifications; etc) should be uniform. But some room could be open for
> > differentiation in some procedural rules such as language; fees; and other
> > administrative aspects.
> Anti-trust again.
> --
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                 -->   It's hot there.   I'm elsewhere.   <--


Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208