This list was published and discussed on our constituency list but there was no formal vote. --MM (4) Should the provider and panel selection processes be modified to address concerns about potential conflicts of interest? [This would include the problem of complainant selection of providers, panel selection bias by providers, etc. ] (5) Should standards for accrediting providers and panelists be promulgated? [there should be some way to de-accredit biased providers and panelists] (8) Should the notice requirements be amended? [Some feel that the notice requirements are too short. ] (10) Should administrative panel decisions be subject to internal appellate review? [whether you agree or disagree with the appeal option, it seems to be a high priority issue that needs to be resolved.] (17) Should complainants be required to post a bond and/or pay a penalty in order to deter "reverse domain-name hijacking"? [there should be some deterrent to RDNH]
I agree to (4) and (5) as priority issues. But I want to pinpoint the following issues as priorities than the other things. a. and b. has to do with the collision with national laws. And c. d. e. has some implications of user's rights. Please take into account this concerns given the different legal context and our constituency's raison d'etre. a. - Should the policy be amended to privide guidance regarding the interpretation of "confusingly similarity"? b. - Should the policy address the question of whether "holding" constitutes "use"? c. - Should "settlement negotiation" communications be excluded as permissible evidence of bad faith? d. - Should administrative panel decisions have precedntial effect? e. - Should "cancellation" (deletion of the registration - allowing subsequent re-registration by anybody) contiune to be an available remedy? On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Milton Mueller wrote:
This list was published and discussed on our constituency list but there was no formal vote. --MM
(4) Should the provider and panel selection processes be modified to address concerns about potential conflicts of interest?
[This would include the problem of complainant selection of providers, panel selection bias by providers, etc. ]
(5) Should standards for accrediting providers and panelists be promulgated?
[there should be some way to de-accredit biased providers and panelists]
(8) Should the notice requirements be amended?
[Some feel that the notice requirements are too short. ]
(10) Should administrative panel decisions be subject to internal appellate review?
[whether you agree or disagree with the appeal option, it seems to be a high priority issue that needs to be resolved.]
(17) Should complainants be required to post a bond and/or pay a penalty in order to deter "reverse domain-name hijacking"?
[there should be some deterrent to RDNH]
-- ------------------------------------------------------------ Chun Eung Hwi General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone: (+82) 2-2166-2205 Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81 | pcs: (+82) 019-259-2667 Seoul, 158-600, Korea | eMail: chun@peacenet.or.kr ------------------------------------------------------------
participants (2)
-
Chun Eung Hwi -
Milton Mueller