Re: [ga-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Danny and all,

  I can think of a few...

1.) Is the current UDRP supposed to be a participating stakeholder
     approved process/procedure?

2.) Should all participating stakeholders have a vote in the approval of
     any UDRP or revision of the current one?

3.) Should there be a periodic review process for any UDRP?

4.) Should a respondent be required to show a TM filed on a domain
      Name being challenged even if that respondent has not yet received
      a response to his/her/it's filing?

5.) Should any decision on a complaint filed be based on international
     Trademark Law or the law indiginant to the respondent?


DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> The questions cited below have been put forth by Milton Mueller, and seem to
> be a good starting point.
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/tor-udrp/Arc00/bin00000.bin
>
> 001.    To what extent are panel decisions consistent with applicable law?
> 002.    Are decisions consistent across panelists and dispute resolution
> service providers, and if not, what can be done about it?
> 003.    Is the potential for abuse of claimed common law rights so great that
> the policy should be limited to registered marks?
> 004.    Should generic names, geographical names, initials and numbers be
> protected from claims by any trademark or name rights' owner, regardless of
> the owner's fame?
> 005.    Is the high respondent default rate due to a lack of real and timely
> notice of complaints and/or a lack of time to respond?
> 006.    Do complainants and respondents have parity in post-UDRP access to
> the courts?
> 007.    Should the ability to challenge a name under the UDRP expire after a
> single registrant has held the name for a specified period of time?
> 008.     Should there be an internal review mechanism (such as an appeal
> panel drawn from all the Providers) to overturn clearly erroneous decisions
> without resorting to courts?
> 009.    Does Complainant selection of the resolution service provider lead to
> "forum shopping" that tends to bias decisions against Respondents?
> 010.    Should registrars, rather than complainants, pre-select the
> Provider(s) to whom all disputes over names registered with them will be
> referred?
> 011.    Do policies for accrediting or de-accrediting dispute resolution
> service providers need to be specified in greater detail? Are any providers'
> supplemental rules inconsistent with either due process and/or the ICANN
> rules?
> 012.    Should the UDRP be amended to enable respondents to initiate a
> "declaratory judgment" regarding their "rights and legitimate interests" in a
> name?
>
> What other questions should be added to this list?
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-udrp@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-udrp" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


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