Mark Measday asked what the committee was allowed to draft. Here is the text of the entire message to ICANN-announce. >Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: "Andrew McLaughlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Icann-Announce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: UPDATE: Uniform Dispute Resolution >Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 09:13:43 -0400 >X-Priority: 3 (Normal) >Importance: Normal >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >At its Santiago meetings on August 25-26, the ICANN Board adopted a uniform >dispute resolution policy and directed ICANN's President to convene a small >drafting group to develop implementation language in a few specific areas, >including the definitions of cybersquatting and reverse domain name >hijacking. The drafting group has been convened and is working to prepare >language to implement the Board's policy decisions. The results of the >drafting group's work will be posted the week of September 20 for public >review and comment before any action is taken by the ICANN Board. > >The following questions and answers provide some basic information about the >status of ICANN's uniform dispute resolution policy, the drafting group and >its work. > > >Q: What is ICANN doing regarding resolution of trademark/domain-name >disputes? > >A: As envisioned in the U.S. Government's White Paper on Management of >Internet Names and Addresses, one of the issues ICANN has been addressing is >a dispute-resolution policy for trademark/domain name disputes. At the >ICANN meeting held August 24-26, 1999 in Santiago, Chile, ICANN's Board of >Directors adopted a dispute resolution policy to be applied uniformly by all >ICANN-accredited registrars in the .com, .net, and .org top-level domains. > >Q: How are disputes to be handled under the policy? > >A: In general, the policy provides that registrars receiving complaints >concerning the impact of domain names they have registered on trademarks or >service marks will take no action until they receive instructions from the >domain-name holder or an order of a court, arbitrator, or other neutral >decision maker deciding the parties' dispute. There is an exception in the >policy, however, for disputes involving domain names that are shown to have >been registered in abusive attempts to profit from another's trademark (i.e. >cybersquatting and cyberpiracy). In these cases of abusive registration, >the complaining party can invoke a special administrative procedure to >resolve the dispute. Under this procedure, the dispute will be decided by >neutral persons selected from panels established for that purpose. The >procedure will be handled in large part online, is designed to take less >than 45 days, and is expected to cost about $1000 in fees to be paid to the >entities providing the neutral persons. Parties to such disputes will also >be able to go to court to resolve their dispute or to contest the outcome of >the procedure. > >Q: What process was used to formulate the policy? > >A: In 1997 and 1998, the U.S. Government, in connection with its >formulation of the Green Paper and the White Paper on privatization of >management of the Internet domain-name system, received many comments >regarding problems that had arisen concerning disputes between holders of >domain names and holders of trademarks. At the conclusion of this process, >the U.S. Government invited the World Intellectual Property Organization >(WIPO) to conduct a study of the relationship between domain names and >intellectual property and make recommendations to ICANN. After a ten-month >process of public consultation, WIPO presented recommendations on dispute >resolution on April 30, 1999. > >At the May 25-27, 1999 ICANN meeting (held in Berlin), ICANN's Board of >Directors endorsed the principle that there should be a uniform >dispute-resolution policy for all registrars that register names in the >.com, .net, and .org top-level domains, and asked the ICANN Domain Name >Supporting Organization (DNSO) to study the issues and make recommendations >concerning dispute resolution. In view of the impending introduction of >competition by many registrars under the Shared Registry System testbed >program, the Board also called on the ICANN-accredited testbed registrars to >work together to formulate a model dispute-resolution policy for prompt >voluntary adoption. > >On August 3, 1999, the DNSO recommended to ICANN's Board that it adopt a >uniform dispute-resolution policy for all registrars in the .com, .net, and >.org top-level domains. Later in August, a group of about 20 registrars >(including testbed registrars, post-testbed registrars, and Network >Solutions) presented a model policy they had worked together to prepare. >These two proposed policies, which were quite similar in principle, were >considered by various groups, including ICANN's Board, at the August 1999 >ICANN meeting held in Santiago, Chile. > >Q: Was the public given an opportunity to provide input? > >A: Yes. Throughout the process, there were many invitations for public >comment, both online and at meetings held throughout the world. These >invitations started in the U.S. Government's Green and White Paper processes >in 1997 and 1998, and continued in the WIPO consultations and in connection >with the analysis conducted by ICANN's DNSO. As a result, several thousand >comments were received from a broad array of Internet stakeholders. The >resulting policy is the collective effort of dozens of individuals who >worked to find the best reconciliation of and compromise among all the >comments. > >Q: Is the policy that was adopted the one that WIPO presented on April 30? > >A: In its April 30 report, WIPO recommended several general principles for >dispute resolution and presented a written policy and procedures that would >implement those principles. Based on the work of the DNSO and the >registrars' group, as well as public comment, there was strong general >support for most of the WIPO-recommended principles. However, some groups >in the ICANN community, particularly those representing non-commercial >organizations and individual domain-name holders, voiced concerns that some >aspects of the policy would have unintended consequences or did not >adequately meet their concerns regarding individual and non-commercial uses, >free speech, rights to court review, and reverse domain-name hijacking. In >response, ICANN's Board determined that some clarifications and revisions >should be made to address these concerns. > >Q: How will the policy be implemented? > >A: Every ICANN-accredited registrar has agreed to adhere to the >dispute-resolution policies that ICANN adopts under its established >consensus procedures. At the Santiago meeting, ICANN's Board directed the >ICANN president, working with staff and counsel, to prepare implementation >documents. Once those documents are completed and approved by the Board >after considering any public comments, the will go into effect as part of >registration agreements between registrars and their customers. > >Q: How are the implementation documents being prepared? > >A: Following guidance in the resolutions passed by ICANN's Board at the >Santiago meeting, ICANN's president has established a small drafting >committee that will use the model written policy and procedures prepared by >the registrars' group as a starting point and make revisions to reflect the >clarified and revised principles that were approved by the Board in response >to public comment. > >Q: What are the clarifications and revisions? > >A: The resolutions adopted by ICANN's Board set forth some clarifications >and revisions to be made to the policies recommended by WIPO, the DNSO, and >the registrars' group. The resolutions reflect both the sentiment expressed >at the DNSO General Assembly meeting on August 24, 1999 and various public >comments received that a uniform policy should be adopted promptly, but that >clarifications and revisions should be made to (a) to tighten up the >definition of cybersquatting and cyberpiracy so that legitimate individual, >non-commercial, and free-speech activities are not impaired; (b) to give >both parties equal rights to challenge administrative decisions in court; >and (c) to define, and to minimize use of the policy for, reverse >domain-name hijacking. > >Q: Who is on the drafting committee? > >A: The drafting committee consists of Louis Touton (ICANN counsel), Kathryn >A. Kleiman (of the Association for Computing Machinery's Internet >Governance Committee, a member of the DNSO Non-Commercial Domain Name >Holders' Constituency, and co-founder of the Domain Name Rights Coalition), >Steven J. Metalitz (General Counsel of the International Intellectual >Property Alliance, a member of the DNSO Trademark, Intellectual Property, >Anti-counterfeiting Interests Constituency), and Rita A. Rodin (of Skadden, >Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, retained by America Online, a member of the >DNSO Registrars Constituency). These individuals were selected because of >their legal drafting abilities and because they represent a diversity of >viewpoints that spans individual, non-commercial, business, intellectual >property, and registrar concerns and interests. > >Q: What is the responsibility of the drafting committee? > >A: The drafting committee's charter is not to establish policy, but instead >to prepare documents implementing the policies expressed in the resolutions >adopted by ICANN's Board at the August 1999 meeting in Santiago. The >committee expects to prepare two main implementation documents: a statement >of the dispute resolution policy that includes a precise set of criteria for >establishing "abusive registration" and a set of procedures to be used for >administrative resolution of disputes involving abusive registrations. The >Board has asked that the drafting be completed on a schedule that allows the >policy to be put into place by mid-October. > >Q: Will the public have input on the implementation documents? > >A: Yes. Once the drafting committee completes the implementation >documents, they will be posted on the www.icann.org website (this is >scheduled to occur during the week of September 20) for comment on whether >or not they faithfully implement the policies adopted at the August meeting. >During the drafting process, any comments on the implementation documents >may be sent (preferably by e-mail) to any or all members of the committee. > >Q: What will happen after public comment on the implementation documents? > >A: After an opportunity for public comment, ICANN's Board will consider >whether the documents appropriately reflect the policies it adopted at the >Santiago meeting and whether they should be approved. Unless it finds the >implementation documents are not consistent with the policy adopted in >Santiago, or that they raise other issues requiring further consideration, >ICANN's Board will promptly consider approving the implementation documents, >probably at a telephone meeting. To the extent that the implementation >documents prepared by the drafting committee would or may entail revisions >to the policies adopted by the Board, the Board may either require revisions >in the implementation documents or consider whether policy revisions are >needed. If significant revisions are entailed, the Board may determine that >it is appropriate to act on those revisions only after public notice and >opportunity to comment, including at a public forum held for that purpose. >The next ICANN public forum is currently scheduled for November 3, 1999, in >Los Angeles, California. > >Q: After the policy is implemented, can it be changed if problems arise? > >A: Yes. ICANN's DNSO is responsible on an ongoing basis for studying and >making recommendations concerning policies relating to the Internet >domain-name system. In presenting its recommendation to ICANN's Board for >adoption of a uniform dispute-resolution policy, the DNSO recognized that >experience under the policy should be monitored and improvements should be >made as appropriate.
