Re: UDRP bad decisions (RE: [ga] Candidate positions on UDRP)

[Harald Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>]

At 12:28 04/09/2000 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>Methinks you've left out a category or three...
>
>- decisions that are obviously "bad"
>
>- decisions where we can't tell if they are bad or not because the
>respondent didn't reply (in some cases by choice, in others due to lack of
>adequate notice)
>
>- decisions that are either obviously or questionably bad but not
>challenged in court because the respondent doesn't have the funds or
>access to good legal representation.

I lumped all of them into "Decisions that some reasonable persons would 
challenge or call "bad"" - I guess there are relatively few cases where the 
panelist doesn't agree with himself, so there's usually at least a single 
person who doesn't want to call the decision "bad".

You and I probably agree on "obvious" in a lot of cases.
The question is how to get from there to the point where we (or our 
somehow-selected representatives through ICANN) tell a panelist that his 
services are not wanted because we disagree with him too often.
And that's the place I don't have a good suggestion on at the moment.

This is my fifth GA message of the day. Time to be quiet for a while.

               Harald

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand@cisco.com
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no

--
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