[To: council@dnso.org] REMINDER: As agreed in the last Council meeting August 14, 2003, each constituency should review the list and identify the top 5 issues of most importantance to the constituency to help guide the prioritisation of further policy development in the area of UDRP. The next GNSO Council meeting is on Thursday, 25 September. If possible could each constituency please let me have their top 5 on Wednesday midday. Thank you very much. GNSO Secretariat http://www.icann.org/gnso/issue-reports/udrp-review-report-01aug03.htm (1) Should there be improved centralized, searchable access to administrative panel decisions? (2) Should complainant and respondent filings be publicly available? (3) Should complainants and respondents be allowed to amend and/or supplement their filings? (4) Should the provider and panel selection processes be modified to address concerns about potential conflicts of interest? (5) Should standards for accrediting providers and panelists be promulgated? (6) Should transfers of proceedings between providers be permitted? (7) Should refunds of providers' fees in the event of settlement be mandatory and standardized? (8) Should the notice requirements be amended? (9) Should the procedure for implementing orders to transfer registrations be amended? (10) Should administrative panel decisions be subject to internal appellate review? (11) Should the policy be changed to require registrars to wait until appeal deadlines expire before taking action in response to court orders? (12) Should the policy be amended with respect to protection for non-registered marks? (13) Should the policy be amended to provide guidance regarding the interpretation of "confusing similarity"? (14) Should multiple complaints be allowed concerning the same registration and registrant? (15) Should the policy address the question of whether "holding" constitutes "use"? (16) Should "settlement negotiation" communications be excluded as permissible evidence of bad faith? (17) Should complainants be required to post a bond and/or pay a penalty in order to deter "reverse domain-name hijacking"? (18) Should the policy expressly include affirmative defenses? (19) Should administrative panel decisions have precedential effect? (20) Should "cancellation" (deletion of the registration - allowing subsequent re-registration by anybody) continue to be an available remedy?