Diane,
> > Having a policy for handling disputes over these
> > unique assignments is essential to performing the required technical
> > function
(Odd that the net got this far without an essential policy, isnt it?)
> Litigation has
> related solely to the actual content of the URL and I am unable to
> understand how this is more of a technical function than is the content
> of the web page.
>
> On the other hand, ICANN is not tasked with the coordination of web
> content, but only that of names, addresses and parameters, so perhaps
> that is a basis for distinction.
>
I'm sure you didnt mean the cynical reading: ICANN is tasked
with technical administration; therefore any factor that it thinks
needs administering is _ipso facto_ technical. Otoh, what *did you
mean?
> I do urge the Board to be most cautious about adopting any uniform
> domain name dispute resolution policy. Use of ccTLDs is growing
> steadily and is likely to be accelerated, IMHO, by the diminishing
> availability of attractive names in the gTLDs. Imposing dispute
> resolution policies that are hostile exclusively to domain holders in
> the gTLDs would seem to encourage that trend and therefore cause mark
> owners to face ever increasing risk.
It is all too easy to imagine that the rumours of EU involvement
pertain exactly to this:
Business needs to protect its trademarks;
The net therefore has to have a UDR.
WIPO has a UDR;
ICANN can impose it on gTLDs;
Therefore national gov'ts have to impose it on ccTLDs.
kerry
