[council] Non-member submission from ["Rothnie, Warwick" <WarwickA.Rothnie@msj.com.au>]

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Hi Warwick

I won't repost but I will return it to you so you know it was bounced.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss


----- Original Message -----
From: <owner-ga-udrp@dnso.org>
To: <owner-ga-udrp@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 9:02 AM
Subject: BOUNCE ga-udrp@dnso.org: Non-member submission from ["Rothnie,
Warwick" <WarwickA.Rothnie@msj.com.au>]


> >From ga-udrp-listadmin@dnso.dnso.org  Wed Jul  4 01:01:56 2001
> Received: from sydmime01.msj.com.au (sydmime01.msj.com.au [203.53.250.25])
> by dnso.dnso.org (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA24647
> for <ga-udrp@dnso.org>; Wed, 4 Jul 2001 01:01:54 +0200 (MET DST)
> Received: from EXCHANGE03.msj.com.au (unverified) by sydmime01.msj.com.au
>  (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.1.5) with ESMTP id
<Tac1001015489967070@sydmime01.msj.com.au> for <ga-udrp@dnso.org>;
>  Wed, 4 Jul 2001 09:06:30 +1000
> Received: from EXCHANGE10.msj.com.au ([172.24.22.100]) by
EXCHANGE03.msj.com.au with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3571);
> Wed, 4 Jul 2001 09:01:49 +1000
> content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Disposition-Notification-To: "Rothnie, Warwick"
<WarwickA.Rothnie@msj.com.au>
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4418.65
> Subject: FW: [ga-udrp] Non-member submission from ["Rothnie,
Warwick"<WarwickA.Rothnie@msj.com.au>]
> Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 09:01:48 +1000
> Message-ID: <C8409978F50DFD4C91E61CA67B3E12F515C2E9@EXCHANGE10.msj.com.au>
> X-MS-Has-Attach:
> X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
> Thread-Topic: [ga-udrp] Non-member submission from ["Rothnie,
Warwick"<WarwickA.Rothnie@msj.com.au>]
> Thread-Index: AcEEEtpJaxesf/GdQ0ybrnv+nqtJxgAAIHVg
> From: "Rothnie, Warwick" <WarwickA.Rothnie@msj.com.au>
> To: <ga-udrp@dnso.org>
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jul 2001 23:01:49.0249 (UTC)
FILETIME=[23F96B10:01C10414]
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by dnso.dnso.org id
BAA24648
>
> Mallesons Stephen Jaques
> Confidential communication
>
>
>
> Warwick A Rothnie
> Partner
> Mallesons Stephen Jaques Melbourne
> Direct line (61 3) 9643 4254
> Fax (61 3) 9643 5999
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:ERIC@HI-TEK.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, 4 July 2001 8:57 AM
> To: Patrick Corliss
> Cc: Rothnie, Warwick
> Subject: Re: [ga-udrp] Non-member submission from ["Rothnie,
> Warwick"<WarwickA.Rothnie@msj.com.au>]
>
>
> Erik Dierker said:
>
> > > > I for one like existing laws
> > > >and would like to see them enforced and if an UDRP did this I would
> be
> > > all for
> > > >it, otherwise it looks like a mechanism for circumvention of
> Sovereign
> > > and
> > > >legitmate laws.
> > >
> > > Since the UDRP expressly contemplates parties pursuing their rights
> on
> > > the courts, however, courts will not consider that the sovereignty
> of
> > > the laws has been circumvented.  That is the point of allowing
> parties
> > > to resort to the courts.  Many arbitration agreements, which are
> upheld
> > > by the courts, go even further than the UDRP and preclude court
> action
> > > over factual findings.
> > >
> > > Warwick A Rothnie
> > > Partner
> > > Mallesons Stephen Jaques Melbourne
> > > Direct line (61 3) 9643 4254
> > > Fax (61 3) 9643 5999
> > >
> >
>
> >I am sorry to have confused you but I think we are talking apples and
> oranges
> >here.  If I sign a valid arbitration agreement with you and it states
> that the
> >exixting Trademark Law will govern on any issue of my right to a name
> as opposed
> >to someone elses, and we arbitrate and the arbitrators missapply that
> existing
> >Trademark Law on a consistent and reliable manner to the benefit of one
> interest
> >group that is in violation of the sovereign laws of the State.  Add to
> that
> >Monopoly, add to that adhesion contracts add to that Violations of the
> MOU with
> >the DoC.
>
> >So they have done an end run and circumvented the laws. Notice I used
> the term
> >circumvention and not violation before. But, add all this to ICANN now
> getting
> >into the business of telling countries they have to follow ICANNs UDRP
> and you
> >have a flat out violation of law as established by treaty.
>
> But surely that is just like any arbitrator making a mistake (assuming
> there be one) and the aggrieved party getting an appropriate court to
> review and, if necessary, rectify.  The UDRP provides that safety valve
> in spades and in the USA (home of plaintiffs' lawyers and contingency
> fees), you could hardly claim that meritorious registrants are being
> shut out of the legal system.
>