ALA would concur that it is long past time that the UDRP be reviewed.

Rick

Frederick W. Weingarten, Director
Office for Information Technology Policy
American Library Association
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 403
Washington, DC  20004
(202) 628-8421
Fax (202) 628-8424
[log in to unmask]
>>> Marc Schneiders <[log in to unmask]> 02/10/04 15:52 PM >>>
A review of the UDRP process was promised for the end of 2000, when
the UDRP was introduced in 1999. So far it did not materialize.

The UDRP has done some good. It has made it easier for those whose
trademarks were abused by people after quick gain (so-called
cybersquatters) to reach a speedy and cheap solution to their problem.
In more than a few cases, however, the UDRP resulted in decisions,
people losing a domain, without any real (or even imagined) trademark
infringement or abuse. In some of these cases there were even free
speech matters totally ignored by the UDRP 'judges'.

In any legal system some people will be unhappy with some decisions.
In the UDRP though, many people are unhappy with more than a few
decisions. There is no real review process in the system. That
explains part of it, but now I am already pre-empting the discussion I
would like to start on this list.

The fact that the UDRP review process did not come about, has more
reasons than just negligence on the part of some bodies within ICANN.
The interested parties probably feel that the whole thing is too
dangerous. Rather keep what we have, though imperfect and sometimes
unjust, than open up a can of worms??

I would like to start some discussion within our constituency, whether
or not it is a good idea to press ICANN to fulfil its promise to
review the UDRP. I would like to bring up the topic in the Names
Council, but only if I am not the only one who thinks there may be
something to gain.

So shoot, please.

--
Marc Schneiders (GNSO council rep)