Comments to the Proposed UDRP

["Celeste Brunson" <celestebrunson@hotmail.com>]

Dear ICANN Board Members:

     This letter contains comments in response to the proposed Uniform 
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.  As a representative of a domain name 
registrant I feel compelled to comment on several issues.

     First, I would like to comment on several implementation issues.  Under 
Sections 3(b)(ix); 5(b)(i); and 15(e) it is proposed that a word limit of 
some sort be set.  I am of the opinion that word limitations constrain 
freedom of thought and usually results in a final expression that is deficit 
with missing information that may have been pertinent for the panelist to 
get a better understanding of the issues expressed by the parties.  In a 
matter as serious as the protection of domain names, imposing word 
limitations to the written complaints, responses, decisions, and dissents 
infringes on freedom of expression and will have a detrimental effect of 
resulting in ambiguity and vagueness existing in the process.  There is too 
much at stake in the protection of a domain name for the concern over 
reviewing lenghthy documents.

     Secondly, for the selection of providers and panelists, I would suggest 
that the complainant be allowed too select the provider by filing the 
complaint with the Provider of his/her choice and the parties jointly select 
the three panelists.  This process offers the best chance for fairness.  
However, a dilemna would arise if the parties have such hostile attitudes 
towards one another and cannot amicably agree on the panelists.

     Thirdly, I am concerned about the incidental effect of Section 
3(b)(xiv) regarding waiver of claims and remedies against the dispute 
resolution provider, the registrar, the registry administrator, and ICANN.  
This precludes action against these entities in a court of law.  I am 
concerned that registrants will be precluded from filing meritorious actions 
against any of these entities for due cause.

    Fourth, the language in paragraph two of the policy entitled "Your 
Representations" whereby the registrar is stating that "we do not check to 
verify" frustrates the purpose of the registrar's existence.  With all the 
technology available today and all the various business relationships that 
exist, all registrars should have some sort of database management system 
which is interconnected with other systems that enables them too check for 
accurate verification or duplication of a domain name registration.

    Lastly, there is no doubt in my mind that the masses of domain name 
registrants would agree with me that not only does the imposition of a 
mandatory dispute resolution policy feel like "big brother" pushing us 
around, but it has the sting of leaving a bad taste in one's mouth.

Sincerely,

Celeste Brunson

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com