You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 6 Next »

Public Comment CloseStatement
Name 

Status

Assigned Working Group

Assignee(s)

Call for
Comments Open
Call for
Comments
Close 
Vote OpenVote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number

24 October 2021

COMMENT

CPWG

Hide the information below, please click here 

FINAL VERSION SUBMITTED (IF RATIFIED)

The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote. 



FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.



DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR DISCUSSION

The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins. The Draft should be preceded by the name of the person submitting the draft and the date/time. If, during the discussion, the draft is revised, the older version(S) should be left in place and the new version along with a header line identifying the drafter and date/time should be placed above the older version(s), separated by a Horizontal Rule (available + Insert More Content control).

From the end-user point of view, it is essential that a reliable, reasonably fast and effective mechanism will be set up to solve disputes about domain names identical with acronyms of intergovernmental organizations.  Used fraudulently, they may create confusion, or worse.  End-users need to be able to trust that information delivered under an IGO acronym emanates from the organization itself.

Thus, what we most care about is that the EPDP eventually reaches consensus, not necessarily the details, but we understand their importance for the main protagonists.  The ALAC welcomes the results already achieved on how to enable IGO’s to access the dispute resolution procedures and on offering arbitration instead of court proceedings as an appeal mechanism after UDRP or URS. These compromise results are due to the cooperative spirit of the WT/EPDP and to the skills of its Chair, and they hold out hope of the group being able to clear the remaining hurdles on the road to full consensus.

There appear not to be strongly held views within At-Large on the yet unsolved questions that are presented as Options in the Initial Report. However, when it comes to minimizing confusion and potential damage to the end-user, time is of essence, and swift processes are preferred.  This would bring us over to the side of Option 1 in Recommendations 4 and 5.

  • No labels