[ga-udrp] RE: [process2] Re: [ga] Some other ideas about the questions... [ga-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

I have for some time been a fan of actually analyzing the types of cases
which are brought and outcomes in order to support the evaluation process.
We have as a company, and the BC has supported a narrow definition of what
types of cases should be brought to the UDRP, and supported that the courts
are there for other instances of disputes and conflicts, and that the courts
remain a recourse after a UDRP, to either party.

Do you think that the proposed questionnaire can help to do the
quantification in a helpful way?

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 4:51 AM
To: ga-udrp
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; 'Sotiris Sotiropoulos'; wsl@cerebalaw.com;
Jefsey Morfin; icann board address; wipop2
Subject: [process2] Re: [ga] Some other ideas about the questions...
[ga-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire


WXW and all,

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello Marilyn,
>
> Saturday, June 30, 2001, 8:45:51 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>
> > I would agree that the original intent of the UDRP was that it focus on
a
> > narrow set of problem/collisions.  It sounds as if you are saying,
William,
> > that "morphing" is occurring, and more cases should be brought before
> > courts.  thanks for your clarification and response. Marilyn
>
> No, I'm saying that it wasn't clearly defined at first, letting any
> claim go under the UDRP, and that one area that could do with reform
> is to set a strict limit as to the types of claims that can and cannot
> be brought, and criteria for cases.

  it is necessary to define clearly what type of cases cannot or should
not be brought to andy potential UDRP, not necessarily the current
one, BTW.  So on this one point we agree.  It conversely should
be clearly defined what type of cases CAN be brought before
any potential UDRP as well.  In addition leveling the playing field
on what constitutes "Bad Faith" needs to be clearly defined
in order to determine what can or cannot be brought before
any potential UDRP.  However all of this had been said
a number of times and was ignored by the than ICANN
Interim BoD and WIPO.  The same attitude seems
to remain or still prevail amongst those individuals within
those organizations.

  Any potential UDRP should be voted upon by participating
Stakeholders before enactment.  And this was yet another point
or principal that was ignored by the than Interim ICANN
BoD and WIPO.  And again, this attitude also seems
to prevail now as well.  As these principals outlined in the
White Paper and the MoU have been ignored it is obvious
that the present form of the UDRP is illegitimate, and to that
degree (Which some may feel is significant as Bill Lovel
seems to) it is at least extra legal.  In that vain, it is therefore
important that any potential UDRP must have broad
legitimate (Voted upon) consensus...  The current "Version"
of the UDRP does not presently...

>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
>
> --
> 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

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