The wish to have a uniform dispute resolution policy makes sense, BUT:
1. It really should be handled at the registry level. ICANN (or the Dept.
of Commerce) got snookered by NSI's "thin registry" model, which amounted to
a wholesale landgrab of registry assets (e.g. customer data) by the
Registrars. Of course, there was only one Registrar -- NSI -- but that's a
small point. One consequence is that along with the assets came
responsibilities, in this case a dispute resolution policy. The dispute
resolution policy would be entirely uniform if it were the registry who
handled it - as is done in all the other TLDs in the world.
2. To say there is no consensus among the constituencies is entirely
premature. In a way, that is what Working Group A is there to discover.
This "thin registry" model causes a lot of problems. It is a departure from
all other models where registry and registries are separated (e.g., .UK,
.DE, .FR etc.), and it will cause tremendous confusion. Whois and dispute
resolution are two things that should be done at the registry level.
Antony
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
>Patrick Greenwell
>Sent: Saturday, June 26, 1999 12:23 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Press Communiqu�In-reply-to :
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>On Fri, 25 Jun 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>
>> >I agree, if there *already were UDR it would be marvelous
>>
>> I'm not against a UDR, but I'm against the wipo udr.
>>
>> What's wrong with a registry saying "bring us a court order" ?
>
>The problem is simple: the ICANN board said that they want a UDR. There is
>no consensus among the constituencies that such a thing is necessary or
>desireable.
>
>It is the epitome of a top-down process.
>
>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>\/\/\/\/\/\
>Patrick Greenwell Telocity
>http://www.telocity.com
>(408) 863-6617 v (tinc)
> (408) 777-1451 f
>\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>/\/\/\/\/\/
>
>
