Joop and all IDNO'ers,
I don't want to take away from Mikkis effort, but it is just possible
at the very least that Joop here has a very strong argument.
Is there really a need for a UDRP. I wonder this myself? BUt
we [INEGroup] have our prepared in response anyway. But now
that I think on this situation, I have reservations about even submitting
it for several reasons, that somewhat coincide with Joop's suggestion
here.
1.) By responding to ICANN/DNSO on the UDRP, you in effect
acknowledging that it is a necessity to have such a policy.
2.) Any UDRP is in effect an attempt to create new law from whole
cloth and as such is done by a group without the buy in of the
stakeholder without a vote. Is that wise?
Joop Teernstra wrote:
> Mikki sent this message to the list,
> with the draft URDP and her amendments attached. It bounced because of it 168K
> size.
> Great work Mikki. Thanks. No wonder you have barely any time left for the SC.
> Meanwhile Rome burns..
>
> [dear all]
> While I have posted proposed changes to the policy and the rules
> governing it, let me make clear that I believe no such policy should
> exist. Its mere existence slants the playing field dangerously
> towards large business interests, and against small business,
> individual, and non-commercial domain name holders.
>
> Given the recent remarks of the INTA representative to the "secret
> drafting committee" as stated on the mailing list for the
> Intellectual Property Constituency, they seem to feel that if the
> policy isn't to their liking, they will circumvent it anyway and go
> directly to court. Would that the domain name holder could do the
> same. Unfortunately, s/he does not have that choice. Once invoked,
> the dispute policy will run in addition to any court procedure. From
> the statements of the INTA representative, the whole exercise seems
> to be meaningless, since if they are not satisfied, the policy will
> be ignored.
>
> Given that neither INTA nor DNRC (and may others, but I will not
> attempt to speak for them) feel that the UDRP is adequate to fulfill
> the needs of our constituents, perhaps it is best to drop the entire
> idea, and allow the court systems and legislatures to take up these
> issues, as they should? Given the current changes in domain name law
> in the United States, it seems prudent to allow this to play out in a
> far more democratic forum than a small drafting committee.
>
> Again, for your information, my proposed changes to the UDRP is
> attached below in HTML source. It is followed by my proposed changes
> to the rules. My apologies for the length of the post.
>
> Draft of 9/23/99 a.m.
>
> Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
>
> (As Approved by ICANN Through October __, 1999)
>
> [The above line not to appear in NSI version]
>
> I have reformatted the whole document and posted it at
> www.idno.org/dispute.htm
>
> --Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
> the Cyberspace Association,
> the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> http://www.idno.org
> -
> This message was sent via the IDNO-DISCUSS mailing list. To unsubscribe,
> send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno-discuss" to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more information, see http://www.idno.org/
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
