I agree that the UDRP needs to be reviewed, however at the rate ICANN is
going, someone will soon suggest a "review of the failure to review." The
failure to take action not only affects current disputes. As Victoria's
reference to the recent WIPO report indicates, the failure to take action
will also affect future disputes in relation to new gTLDs and exacerbate
issues with the role of GAC.

There are many significant issues in need of review, including the length of
time a respondent gets to respond and the issues highlighted by other
candidates. As NCSG reps, we mustn't forget respondents in those countries
which have adopted the UDRP for use in ccTLD disputes. This includes many
developing countries in which the size of UDRP fees, the complexity of
private arbitration processes, and the inability to have legal
representation pose insurmountable barriers to defending genuine domain name
disputes. 

Human rights defenders in some countries also face barriers to free
expression and political participation because of policies that affect
domain name disputes (such as oppressive name registration policies). It's
vital that domain name dispute procedures are fair and accessible to all. We
need to bring forward the issues for those in developing countries to
strengthen the case for review.

Joy 

-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Avri
Doria
Sent: Friday, 30 September 2011 8:21 p.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Question 5: UDRP

As I have not been able to get a conference call scheduled yet, I am
starting the question process.  I suggest that all candidates answer all
questions.  I suggest that they feel free to debate among themselves and
with the members of the NCSG.

Thanks

Avri

Question 5: What is you view on the issue of UDRP review?  Are there
respondents rights that need attention such as the length of time a
respondent gets to respond.