239
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 31:
Line 31: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Developments
==Developments==
==Developments==
* The ICANN board accepted the [[DNSO]]'s recommendation that [[ICANN]] was able to adopt a uniform dispute resolution policy for accredited registrars for top level domains.
*The ICANN board had also provided guidence towards the implementation and the preperation if the following documents -
1. The registrars' Model Dispute Resolution Policy should be used as a starting point;
2. The President or his delegate should convene a small drafting committee including persons selected by him to express views and consider the interests of the registrar, non-commercial, individual, intellectual property, and business interests;
3. In addition to the factors mentioned in paragraph 171(2) of the WIPO report, the following should be considered in determining whether a domain name was registered in bad faith:
a) Whether the domain name holder is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the mark, without intent to misleadingly divert consumers for commercial gain or to tarnish the mark
(b) Whether the domain name holder (including individuals, businesses, and other organizations) is commonly known by the domain name, even if the holder has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; and
(c) Whether, in seeking payment for transfer of the domain name, the domain name holder has limited its request for payment to its out-of-pocket costs.
4. There should be a general parity between the appeal rights of complainants and domain name holders.
5. The dispute policy should seek to define and minimize reverse domain name hijacking;
*The AT large directors was no able to consist of no more than 18 members, all of which were to be selected by already serving members of the [[ICANN]] commitee.
==Historical Notes==
==Historical Notes==