[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Fwd: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Fwd: UDP Conference call report]
- To: ICANN Comments <Comments@icann.org>
- Subject: [Fwd: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Fwd: UDP Conference call report]
- From: Jeff Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 14:43:21 +0100
- Organization: INEG. Inc. (Spokesman INEGroup)
---- Begin included message ----
---- End included message ----
>The 12-2 conference call ended at 3:51. Kathy had to leave the call
>shortly after 2pm.
>In the next 24+ hours ICANN will post a revised draft for c. 10 days
>public comment and then either implement it (or a revised version of it)
>unilaterally, or send it to the board for review depending on whether any
>comments persuade them they have to change anything big.
>In other words: what gets posted some time in the next 24+ hours is a done
>deal in all material respects (at least in Louie Touton's mind) unless
>there is a lot of screaming opposition.
>I will not try to summarize all the changes made today, since a clean text
>will I gather be up very soon at the ICANN site. Here are two major
>1) Louie decided over my loud objection that the "freeze" jurisdiction
>would be the registrant's address as shown in whois ONLY for legacy
>registrations. All new registrations and all renewals will be subject to
>a rule that gives you ten business days to file a complaint in the
>jurisdiction of the registrar. If you make that deadline it will freeze
>the implementation of the result of the "administrative" proceeding. Of
>course you can seek a TRO (injunction) anywhere you can get one, but
>merely filing an ordinary civil action elsewhere will not stop the
>registrar from transferring the DN if you lost administrative proceeding.
>2) Lots of confusion over method of selection of arbitrators. WIPO and it
>seems others think that the proposal in the 9/23 draft is too complex.
>There is, I confess, something to that. That doesn't mean though that the
>latest substitute being considered is the answer either:
>ICANN will keep a master list of accredited arbitration providers. EVERY
>registrar will be required to use them ALL and to assign complaints to
>providers on a random or "wheel" rotation basis (no plaintiff or
>defendant choice). Complainant can ask for one or three arbitrators, and
>he plays for what he asked for; if complainant asks for one and respondent
>wants three (from that provider), then they split the cost of the three
>The reigsitrars didn't like this plan any more than I did -- we both
>thought registrars should be able to select a subset list of providers
>off the ICANN master list to encourage competition.
>Most of the other TM giveback demands were rejected in their most
>obnoxious parts, but not always in whole.
>A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | email@example.com
>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 warm and damp here. <--
This message was sent via the IDNO-DISCUSS mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno-discuss" to
firstname.lastname@example.org. For more information, see http://www.idno.org/