Working Group: Difference between revisions
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
Working Group A was criticized by University of Miami Law Professor [[Michael Froomkin]]. He described the working group as a failure and it is not properly constituted based on ICANN rules.He cited that working group A was not properly represented from each of the constituency under the DNSO, which is a requirement under the ICANN rules. According to him, the working group was manipulated and railroaded by the chairman by creating sub-groups, minimizing and disenfranchising inputs and points of view.<ref>[http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~amf/icann-udp.htm Comments on ICANN Uniform Dispute Policy]</ref> | Working Group A was criticized by University of Miami Law Professor [[Michael Froomkin]]. He described the working group as a failure and it is not properly constituted based on ICANN rules.He cited that working group A was not properly represented from each of the constituency under the DNSO, which is a requirement under the ICANN rules. According to him, the working group was manipulated and railroaded by the chairman by creating sub-groups, minimizing and disenfranchising inputs and points of view.<ref>[http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~amf/icann-udp.htm Comments on ICANN Uniform Dispute Policy]</ref> | ||
Despite criticisms, subsequent Working Groups were also created by the DNSO Names Council on June 25, 1999 to perform specific tasks such as: * '''WG B''' - Protection on famous trade-marks | Despite criticisms, subsequent Working Groups were also created by the DNSO Names Council on June 25, 1999 to perform specific tasks such as: | ||
* '''WG B''' - Protection on famous trade-marks | |||
* '''WG C''' - Creation of new gTLDs | * '''WG C''' - Creation of new gTLDs | ||
* '''WG D''' - DNSO business plan and internal procedures | * '''WG D''' - DNSO business plan and internal procedures | ||