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.

&Mac183; 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.