| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
In one sense it isn't surprising: .kids.us was likely to prefer a US-based dispute provider to a Geneva-based one. Especially for matters relating to content control.
In another way it's both shocking and interesting: The Dot Kids Implementation & Efficiency Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-317), requires "A process to provide registrants to the new domain with an opportunity for a prompt, expeditious, and impartial dispute resolution process regarding any material of the registrant excluded from the new domain."
Sure sounds like the basis for a private right of action if, say, just hypothetically, you could show that the dispute provider was (perish the thought)...a little one-sided or even biased.
Why does NeuStar (the .kids.us operator) subject its customers to NAF? Does it know what it's getting into by choosing NAF for content disputes?
Note that NAF's contract with NeuLevel isn't exclusive, so it's possible that NeuLevel will select additional dispute providers in the futuree. Indeed for "usDRP" cases (the .us version of the UDRP), NeuLevel allows the use of either NAF or the reputable American Arbitration Association. It's also notable that the Dot Kids Implementation and Efficiency Act lacks a direct requirement of "a prompt, expeditious, and impartial dispute resolution process" for the usDRP...
The deadline for 'sunrise' applications to .kids.us is this Friday, Aug. 15, by the way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
[ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]
|
|
| | |
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
What's Worse Than WIPO? (Hint - they're doing .kids.us)
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 2 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
|
This is a little off-topic, but I was wondering:
I recently read this at the UDRP provider accreditation page:
[Applicants must provide ICANN with] "A description of how the applicant intends to publish decisions of panels in proceedings it administers and a commitment to provide ICANN with copies of all portions of decisions of panels not published." Link [icann.org]
Anyone know anything about this? Are there unpublished decisions around - and why would ICANN envisage a system where some decisions wouldn't be published?
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
What's Worse Than WIPO? (Hint - they're doing .kids.us)