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

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

Marilyn and all assembly members or other interested parties,

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> 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.

  As have a number of our staff, including myself...

>
> 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.

  I think that you have possibly inadvertently hit upon on of the center points
of the UDRP process.  The courts should be the option of the Domain Name
holder in any dispute, irregardless of any UDRP filing by any complainant in
order to protect the interests of the Domain Name holder.  This could be
a jurisdictional problem for some complainants to be sure, but if they are
filing on a TM related issue than they are responsible for defending their
TM. This is not a direct UDRP problem but a contractual one with
the registrant agreements related to the registration of a Domain Name.
Ergo, extra legal...

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

  Yes I do.  And If you have been following the ga-udrp list, I proposed
several questions to address a number of these issues...

>
>
> -----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

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