Comments on dispute policy

["Russ Smith" <russ@russ-smith.com>]

The current plans for a dispute policy contains definitions of "abusive" and
"bad faith" registrations.  The current definition of such registrations
includes issues not readily apparent at the time of registration.  This
includes the intent of the registrant when registering the domain, the
pattern of registrations made by the registrant, etc.  However, I have been
unable to find any information anywhere as to who would collect this
information, who would make this determination , and how would this critical
determination would be made.  Until these details are made part of the plan
the resolution should not even be considered since there is no practical way
to implement it.

In addition to this ICANN has made a significant effort to block
participation of individual domain holders (which is discussed in several
other comments).  ICANN has also gone out of their way to block access to
basic information concerning their operation and the choosing of advisory
boards.  Numerous requests for information to Andrew Mclaughlin have been
denied and/or ignored.  This includes information on how the advisory panels
were chosen.  Mr. Mclaughlin has even refused to provide e-mail addresses of
the advisory board members making it difficult, if not impossible, to even
contact these advisory members.  This is a willful defiance of the terms of
the cooperative agreement between ICANN and DOC.

At this point it is a waste of time to attempt to participate in ICANN
activities.  The only option of Internet users excluded from the process is
litigation against ICANN and DOC should they implement any of these policies
without adhering to the terms of the cooperative agreement.

Russ Smith
http://consumer.net