Re: [ga] Re: Weikers position on UDRP

[Dennis Schaefer <apsdps@mediaone.net>]

Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> At 18:57 01/09/2000 +0100, Louise Ferguson wrote:
> >Surely setting a higher filing fee would act as a deterrent: $1500
> >(depending or arbitrator) seems a low price for putting someone's business
> >in jeopardy. This would also
> >provide the panellist with realistic recompense for deciding what are often
> >complex cases with >100 documents filed as evidence, sometimes in several
> >languages.
> >$4-5,000 (split arbitrator/panelists) seems a more reasonable fee to me, and
> >is still a lot less than a lawsuit.
>
> One reason for the UDRP going for low fees was to make the process
> available also to small companies who were victims of abusive domain name
> registration.
>
> The UDRP discussions at WIPO focused a lot on getting the simple cases out
> of the way fast; the complex cases where > 10 documents were filed as
> evidence were intended to be moved to the normal legal system.

The notion that the number of documents filed is what makes a case complex
deserves a
second look.  It is arguably the cases in which the registrant doesn't even file
a reply
that deserves the greatest scrutiny, as these are the most likely to involve who
have
simply surrendered their rights when confronted with a challenge. The cost of
preparing a
response which might serve to trigger a damage suit under US law would be a
strong
incentive for many to simply give up.

>
>
> I think one of the failures of the UDRP is that the panelists have handed
> out decisions where they should have been saying "this is too complex to
> decide under the UDRP".

Francis Gurry of WIPO is quoted in this morning's NY Times as saying that UDRP
cases only involve "black and white issues" that are do not require any balancing

of the rights of the parties involved.  Maybe the notion that there is any form
of law
that is ever purely black and white is the fatal flaw in the UDRP.



>
>
>                  Harald
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html