Comments I sent to the ICANN Small Drafting Committee

[Carl Oppedahl <carl@oppedahl.com>]

I've posted at http://www.patents.com/nsi/sdc.htm the comments I sent today
to the ICANN Small Drafting Committee regarding the domain name dispute
policy which they are designing.  Bullet points include the following:

	The present draft dispute policy should be 
	discarded, and an RFC 1591 policy enacted instead 
	
	No new long-term mechanism is needed for the 
	transitionary and diminishing problem of cybersquatting  
          
	The reverse domain name hijacking problem is an increasing one 
          
	No one in the Internet community, save trademark owners, 
	feels that WIPO or ICANN should take it upon themselves 
	to decide trademark disputes 

	The dispute policy should remain voluntary, that is, 
	individual registrars should retain their present freedom 
	to devise their own dispute policies 

	The "welcome mat" to reverse domain name hijackers 
	should be withdrawn, and penalties should be imposed 
	on reverse domain name hijackers through the policy 

	The "terror factor" of the policy should be dispelled 

	There should be a "statute of repose" for remedies 
	under the policy 

	There should be a limitations period tied to the age 
	of the trademark 

	The challenger should consent to jurisdiction and venue 
	for the domain name owner's declaratory judgment action 

	The tribunal should not be permitted to keep 
	bad decisions secret 

	The ten-day appeal deadline in the policy 
	should be much longer 

	The challenger should be required to take 
	all reasonable steps to give notice 

	Comments on the guideline "There should be a 
	general parity between the appeal rights of 
	complainants and domain name holders" 

	Comments on the guideline "The dispute policy 
	should seek to define and minimize reverse 
	domain name hijacking"  

	Comments on the claim that the dispute 
	policy would only be available in cases of 
	"bad faith" registrations of domain names