Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

[Andy Gardner <andy@navigator.co.nz>]

At 12:03 pm -0700 4/7/01, Kent Crispin wrote:
>It is true that in some of the bad decisions the arbitrator seems to be
>careless about whether the complainant really makes their case;

IIRC, in a recent case (garthbrooks.com?) the arbitrator freely admitted
that the respondent was not using the name in bad faith, but then decided
that since he could do so in the future, that the name should go to the
complainant.

>many
>people think that the UDRP rules should be made more clear in several
>areas.

I think the BIGGEST problem is that there is nothing in the rules to deal
with arbitrators (or their providers) who continuously make bad decisions.
That ICANN allows NAF to continue to use supplementary rules that are in
complete contravention of ICANN's rules speaks VOLUMES about ICANN's
preferential treatment of IP interests.

-- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
--
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