Resolutions
of the Noncommercial Constituency of the DNSO, Passed at the Stockholm meeting,
June 1, 2001.
UDRP
Resolution
Passed 29 in favor, 1
opposed, 1 abstention
As policy advice, the
Non-commercial constituency submits to the Names Council and the ICANN Board
the following ideas for improving the UDRP:
1. Domain name registrations
that have been held by the same registrant for three years should be exempted
from challenges under the UDRP.
2. We note that statistical
studies of the UDRP have shown that "forum shopping" by complainants
exists in the application of the UDRP. This biases the results and needs to be
changed. We encourage exploration of the following remedies:
2a:
ICANN could provide domain name holders with some form of a declaratory judgment.
Domain name holders should be able to initiate a UDRP proceeding, using the
dispute resolution service provider of their choice, to obtain a finding that
they have a "right and legitimate interest" in a name. Prospective
complainants would be given a period of time to contest the claim.
2b.
Registrars, rather than complainants, could select the dispute resolution
provider. Such a selection should be done not on a case-by-case basis, but
through contracts that would apply in a non-discriminatory fashion to all names
registered by that registrar.
3. We note with great concern
that one US court has decided that a respondent has no right to appeal a
decision by a UDRP panel to transfer a name.* If this becomes a precedent, the
procedural and substantive aspects of the UDRP need to be substantially
revised.
4. We oppose any extension of
the UDRP to new rights in names, such as rights of personality, geographic
place, and so on. The domain name system is a method of giving mnemonic names
to Internet resources and of mapping information to those names. The process of
assigning domain names should not become overly burdened with regulations and
legal and political baggage. Such a linkage of domain name assignment to global
legal rights is inimical to the Internet's growth, freedom and stability.
·
Judge Young (Mass District Court, USA) held that
no declaratory judgment was available to the registrant of corinthians.com,
including under the ACPA, if the victorious party in the UDRP (the trademark
holder) disclaimed any intention to file a trademark lawsuit of his own. There
being exactly that disclaimer, he then dismissed the case for failure to state
a claim.
Charter Revision on Membership
All NCDNHC member
organizations are expected to pay annual membership fees. The fee for Small
organizations is US$50 per year, with exceptions noted below. The fee for Large
organizations is US$300 per year, with exceptions noted below.
Exceptions:
For small organizations in the
countries with an annual Gross Domestic Product per capita below US$10,000 as
of 2000 (source: CIA World Factbook), the annual membership fee will be US$25.
Large or small organizations may be
exempted from paying the membership fee by applying to the Adcom. The
application should explain why the membership fee constitutes an economic and
administrative hardship, and should document the organization's budget. All
Adcom members and the Membership officer will be
empowered to vote on exemptions.
Decisions will be based on majority rule. Adcom members who do not respond to
votes within ten days need not be counted, except that at least three eligible
parties must vote.
Membership administration
The Adcom will select, by majority
vote, a membership officer. The membership officer may be, but is not required
to be, an Adcom member. The membership officer shall
* maintain the official membership list
* inform the e-mail
administrator of which organizations to add or remove from the email list used
for voting and announcements.
* keep track of discussions and
decisions regarding the eligibility of organizations that apply to join the
constituency
* inform applicants for membership of
the status of their application
* recommend to the adcom changes in
membership policies and practices.
Membership shall be annual. The
membership year will coincide with the Western calendar year. For existing
member organizations, membership fees will be payable
from Jan 1 to March 1. [Note: the
charter should also be amended to have Adcom elections the second week in
March.] Organizations that have not renewed their
membership fees by that date will be
stricken from the membership list and not permitted to vote in the Adcom elections
or other elections held during the calendar year. If any votes are held between
Jan 1 and March 1, organizations that have not paid their membership fee will
not be allowed to vote.
New member organizations can pay their
membership fee at any time after they have been informed of their acceptance by
the membership officer, but they will not be added to the voting list until the
fee is received. Organizations exempted from the membership
fee will gain voting rights after the
Adcom decision admitting them has been sent to the list.
Proposed by Hakikur Rahman, amendments proposed by
Horacio Cadiz and YJ Park
The NCDNHC supports formation of a body which would provide technical and policy assistance, such as operations, domain name disputes, etc., and necessary guidance in enhancing ccTLD registries in developing countries.
That the NCDNHC form
a body which will help ICANN investigate violations of the ICP-1 and RFC-1591
ccTLD documents;
That the same body be tasked with studying whether the current ICP-1 and RFC
1591 documents need to be modified, supplemented, or replaced by a new document
which will ensure that the ccTLD administrators adhere to community-based,
community-supported, and neutral registry operations of the ccTLD Registries in
consonance with ICANN's policy of ensuring a neutral gTLD registry.
The ccTLD contracts among ccTLD-ICANN-GAC should go through an appropriate,
open, transparent and documented consultation process with Local Internet
Community, which by nature includes various non-commercial organizations and
its members.
Therefore, NCDNHC, would like to propose that ccTLD contract should first go
through DNSO consultation in order to encourage local Internet community
discussion rather than negotiation among small group of people, ccTLD admin
contact, ICANN staff and representative from GAC.
The NCDNHC recommends and
request formally to the ICANN Board the
creation of a new constituency that
represents individual domain name
holders and that all the process
required be followed according to the
By-Laws regarding new constituencies.
Passed 29 in favor, 0
opposed, 0 abstentions
At the ICANN meeting to
take place in Stockholm on June 1-4, the ICANN Board of Directors will vote on
the ICANN FY 01-02 budget. The NCDNHC wishes to alert the ICANN Board of
Directors to the following issues before the final vote.
1. Budget for At Large. The proposed FY
01-02 budget does not reflect any funds for the continuing activity of the At
Large. The funding allocated for the At Large in the proposed budget only
covers the costs of the At Large Study Committee (estimated at $250,000 for
2001, out of a total cost of $450,000). ICANN should also allocate funds
for At Large elections with the
presumption that elections would take place in late 2001 or during 2002. Given
that the At Large election that took place in the Fall of 2000 cost $250,000,
ICANN should at least allocate an equivalent amount since the planning for such
elections would begin during the FY 01-02.
2. Translation Services. The proposed FY 01-02 budget does not
prioritize or provide any funding for simultaneous translation services for
ICANN public meetings or translation of ICANN documents. If ICANN wishes to
include Internet users from around the world in its process, it needs to
provide these services as a high priority. The international impact of ICANN
decisions require such international participation.
3. Input into the Budget Process. The Budget Group advising the
Finance Committee and the President only includes representatives from
registries, registrars and RIRs. In order to ascertain a full picture of the
priorities that ICANN faces in the coming year, the Finance Committee and the
President should have consulted other constituencies
and not merely those that "contribute the largest share of
ICANN's financial support." After all, the Internet is for everyone.