Dispute Resolution Policy Review Submission

From:		David JA Cairns


Firstly, comments were requested on the interaction of the policy and the Arbitration Act. 
I am not sure exactly what type of interaction is envisaged, but in my view it is 
imperative to keep domain name dispute resolution entirely separate from arbitration 
legislation. There is no advantage at all in seeking to integrate domain name resolution 
in even the most limited manner with arbitration legislation, and substantial costs in 
terms of the loss of speed, simplicity and flexibility.
 
Secondly, you might wish to consider some provision in the Policy for the
Respondent to surrender voluntarily a disputed domain name to the Complainant. There is 
provision in section B18 for settlement but, in my experience of the similar provision i
n the ICANN Policy, Complainants are reluctant to suspend proceedings once begun in order 
to finalise a settlement. Accordingly, under the ICANN Policy complaints can proceed to 
a Panel decision, notwithstanding a voluntary offer to transfer. The .nz Policy in A5.3 
contains an innovation that provides an incentive for a Respondent unilaterally to 
surrender a domain name that cannot be defended (namely, to avoid a finding of Unfair 
Registration). Your informal mediation provisions (which, of course, do not appear in 
the ICANN Policy) might as a practical matter avoid this problem. Still, you might wish 
to consider whether the DRS should be empowered to make an enforceable order based on 
the Respondent's unilateral consent to transfer.