[process2-comments] RFC-1

 Name: Giorgio Griffini Organization: Individual Position: - WIPO should take this second process as a clear mark that something is going wrong with result of first process. The UDRP base concept is definition of 'abusive registration' and the way to identify it by the 'bad-faith' criteria. If applied properly there should be no concern or issues to solve anymore. The problem is that UDRP has been 'abused' by raising it as a method to select who (of two contending parties) has 'more' right than the other on using a domain name and this fact has raised such concern about 'geographical' , 'personal names' and so on. Even if we can attempt to addres a short list of issues now there will be another one list quickly ready to address next and this will even make the effort of having the UDRP working by defining 'bad faith' worthless. (this was a point specifically told as the stronger point of UDRP) In summary I think that may be more profitable, for a second process, to try to address and enforce the original intended meaning of UDRP in order to avoid disputes being solved in favour of a party who has 'more' rights than another. The UDRP should just determine if a involved party is in bad-faith. If they both have legitimate right (as trademark owner or less) there are no excuses: First Come First Served. If this will be done properly we will not have the need to define further processes to better define how to handle or protect other name confict issues in future. Best regards Giorgio Griffini