On Sat, 26 Jun 1999, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> The wish to have a uniform dispute resolution policy makes sense,
Makes sense for some, not for others.
The world of domain name registration has managed to muddle along just
fine without any sort of mandated uniform dispute resolution policies.
There is a nice, ever-increasing stack of case law that has formed saying
that "cybersquatters" don't win. As that is the case, there is little
necessity for a uniform dispute policy in cases involving
"cybersquatting." Any other type of dispute is most properly handled by
either *VOLUNTARY* arbitration, or by the courts.
> 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.
Is it? We have had years of discussion about this very subject among a
wide number of players and there has never been consensus on this issue.
In fact, within the IFWP I believe there was a consensus emerging that in
fact a UDRP was *not* desireable.
Further, Working Group A was formed "to Review Chapter 3 of the WIPO
recommendations, regarding Conflict Resolution Policy for Domain Names."
It wasn't formed to decide if "UDRPs were necessary or desireable."
The intent is clear.
The process is horribly flawed. Working Group A was formed before an
elected Names Council is seated. Who decided that Working Group A was a
good thing? The currently unelected and unrepresentative ICANN board? The
currently unelected and unrepresentative provisional Names Council?
The results, likewise will be horribly flawed.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell Telocity http://www.telocity.com
(408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
