Hello, the GNSO Council is finally getting around to assessing and possibly revising the UDRP. The Council has asked the constituencies to prioritize 5 issues related to the UDRP from a staff report listing 20 issues. http://www.icann.org/gnso/issue-reports/udrp-review-report-01aug03.htm Here is the list. I would disregard issues 1 and 2, which are not really policy issues. I will send my take on the "top five" later. --MM >(1) Should there be improved centralized, searchable access to >administrative panel decisions? XX > >(2) Should complainant and respondent filings be publicly available? XX > >(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?