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

Comment on the UDRP implementation documents

To: The ICANN Board

Following is our comment on the draft implementation documents for the
UDRP posted on September 29, 1999.

Since there is not enough time to go through every aspect that is argued
in the Staff Report, we decided to limit our argument only on the point
number 3, which is one of those issues that comment is especially invited,
so that our proposal becomes rich in the context.

	> 3. What procedures should be used for selection of Providers
        > and Panelists In the Process of drafting implementation
        > documents, several alternatives were explored.  Each alternative
        > has advantages and disadvantages. In brief, the main alternatives
        > include:

Examining the four alternatives, it is clear that alternative (d) is the
fairest to the both parties and also it fits the Board resolution in that
it promotes the goal of minimizing registrar involvement in domain-name

Alternative (d), however, has its flaws.

    - The alternative excels others in giving each party the ability
    to select one Panelist from the universe of Panelists presented
    by all Providers, which means it would give the both parties
    various options. Still, we have to dwell on the following points:
    1) there is a high possibility that the fees of Providers cannot
    be presented beforehand, and 2) effective price competitions among
    Providers would not occur according to the above-said reason.

    - In the alternative, Panelist selection process is the fairest,
    choosing two Panelists from both side and then the selected choose
    the third. But the selection process itself can impose a great
    burden on the Providers, which may result in delay of the
    selection process.
Taking these arguments into consideration, our own alternative is the

    * Allow the complainant to select the Provider. If the domain-name
    holder agrees the choice, the cost of the process is covered by the
    complainant. If the domain-name holder disagrees, the domain-name
    holder re-chooses another Provider. In the latter case, the expenses
    of the process is shared by the both parties. Panelists are selected
    by the Provider.

This approach takes advantage of both alternatives (a) and (b).
Specifically, it gives the domain-name holder a greater part of right to
choose the Provider, at the same time, promotes the price competition
among Providers.

Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC)
Domain Name Working Group

 Hiroaki Takada (WG Chair)
 Tsugizo Kubo (*)
 Toshi Tsubo

 * Panel of experts for the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process