[arabic-vip] Dispute Resolution Issues Document Ver 5.0 ..

[Siavash Shahshahani]

Dear Manal and All,
Thanks first of all to Manal for going through this difficult effort. I
believe a couple of preliminary notes are in order. I may be repeating what
may have already transpired in the sessions I was not able to attend, but
as I see no clear reference to them in the text, I'll go through them at
the risk of boring you.
1. Any specific reference to UDRP assumes you are talking about gTLDS and
not ccTLDs. cc's can adopt their own policies as they are focused on a more
well-defined communities and are often bound by existing national
legislations and/or local constraints. So if this effort is going to have
any application we should perhaps more modestly entitle it as something
like ' Variant considerations in connection with Dispute Resolution
Policies'. (Note the intentional dropping of U from UDRP and 'policies'
instead of 'policy'.) 
2. The text focuses on bundles. There are at least two problems here:
2A)Bundles are not the only way to treat variant problems that lead to
possible abuse or confusion. We may add a preamble saying that we are
treating bundles as an EXAMPLE, but similar considerations should be noted
for other variant-related tools.
2B)More importantly, the scope and function of bundles is not made clear
in the text. What do you include in the bundle? Only visually identical
labels, or possibly confusing labels as well? The answers to the questions
raised would certainly depend on how tightly you define a bundle. My guess
is that the policy should depend on such factors as the intended linguistic
scope of the registry, whether it is a cc or a g, etc. So it seems to me
that a more useful exercise would be to differentiate between 'Strict
Bundles' containing visually identical labels and those with a potential
for confusion. For the latter, perhaps no bundling is necessay and the
existing UDRP(for gTLDs) works fine. For the former, bundling (or other
tools) are a must if we are to prevent Internet from becoming insecure and
for that reason any question of breaking up a bundle makes no sense.
I have made some further comments (in blue) in the attached revised text.
Regards,
Siavash

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:09:41 +0200, "Manal Ismail" <manal at tra.gov.eg>
wrote:
> Dear all ..
> Reference to our conference call earlier today, please find attached the
> Dispute Resolution issues document ver 5.0 .. I tried to reflect today's
> discussion but as the call was not that clear please accept my apologies
> for any misunderstandings ..
> Awaiting any corrections or feedback ..
>  
> Kind Regards
>  
> --Manal
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: VIP-Variant Issues related to Dispute Resolution - ver5.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 37888 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/arabic-vip/attachments/20110817/a318218e/VIP-VariantIssuesrelatedtoDisputeResolution-ver5-0001.doc