cross-posting to the WIPO list because it's about WIPO.
I am not thrilled with the expression "competition in DRPs" because I think
it will lead to off-shore jurisdictions catering to pirates. I acknowledge
that getting out from under the Damocles sword of NSI's DRP is not
insignificant, but it is my guess (emphasize guess) that most DN owners
will concentrate first on price and customer service before DRPs. So will
competition in DRPs consists of promising the best justice, or in fact
focus of minimal regulation?
What public policy is served by minimalistic off shore banking regulation?
I think anonymous no questions asked numbered bank accounts enables huge
drug smuggling operations and dictators. I don't think public policy will
be served by minimalistic no questions asked DN registration (talking
commercial TLDs folks, not non-commercial). And that's what DRP
competition would lilkely lead to.
At 02:29 PM 5/13/99 -0700, you wrote:
>On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 04:00:25PM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>> Kent, let me ask you a question. DO you think the WIPO report
>> should be adopted, scrapped or modified?
>
>A serious question deserves a serious answer:
>
>I think it should be adopted, immediately, on a provisional basis. I
>think that the new registrars need a uniform framework for dispute
>resolution fairly early on (like: now). However, the WIPO report
>itself leaves some questions open, so for that reason alone the DRP
>has to be modifiable.
>
>Modifiability, therefore, is a requirement. And therefore, things
>that don't work can be fixed. And, hysterical claims to the
>contrary, things that don't work *will* be fixed.
>
>The advantages of having a uniform policy available immediately are
>significant, especially given that a uniform policy is a politically
>inescapable long-term reality. It vastly simplifies the registrars
>lives during startup of competition.
>
>NSI and others have claimed that there should be competition in DRPs.
>But adoption of the WIPO standards don't preclude competition in
>dispute resolution -- it gives an international base level that
>registrars can work from. Without that base level registrars will
>arbitrage DRPs down to criminality -- competition requires rules the
>players can count on, otherwise conflicts get bumped a level and
>people start taking out contracts on each other.
>
>>
>> If you think it should be adopted is that because it's
>> such a great idea or because "if we just pass this we
>> can get on with it and get that much closer to getting
>> new tlds in the root".
>
>Kind of both.
>
>I think a uniform base DRP is a great idea -- more precisely, I think
>it is an absolutely necessary precondition for private
>self-regulation of the net. Without it, complete control over all
>this *will* go to some international treaty organization. The WIPO
>recommendations aren't perfect, but they form a pretty good starting
>point, and they will evolve over time.
>
>I also am very much in favor of new gTLDs, and it should be clear to
>anyone who has been around for very long that a uniform dispute
>resolution procedure has got to be there before we will get any new
>gTLDs.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> "Those who give up a little freedom for a little security
>> will not have, nor do they deserve, either one"
>> --Thomas Jefferson
>
>--
>Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>
>
