Marc:
In line with the last failed review process, I conducted a
detailed statistical study of UDRP results, and made
some specific proposals for change in the content and
procedure of the UDRP. That study is available here:

http://dcc.syr.edu/markle/markle-report-final.pdf

Even if one does not make the major changes I
proposed there, there are a number of critical and sometimes
simple procedural changes that need to be made in UDRP
just for practical reasons. 

One of these changes is simply to get ICANN to require
renewal of a dispute resolution service provider's accreditation,
or to define criteria for withdrawing accreditation. 

However, we as NCUC need to keep our eyes focused on
the bottom line, which is: compared to the amount of energy
we would have to invest in a full-blown UDRP review,
would the results be worth it? Is it a priority for us?
I hope other members will weigh in on this.

I have copied Michael Froomkin on your original message 
and this one and will forward his response to the list. 
He was one of our recommended experts on the old
review process. 

--MM

>>> Marc Schneiders <[log in to unmask]> 02/10/04 03:33PM >>>
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)