Re: [ga-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire

["NameCritic" <watch-dog@inreach.com>]

To Joop and all: We have all been posing great questions and some of us
attempting to answer them, but that probably won't get the job at hand done.
IMO, we need to discuss the list presented at the task force website, if
Danny can repost the link please, that the Representatives from the
different groups know will be on the table.

Many of those are reflected in the questions we have listed here. If we
first come to an agreement or consensus on answers to those issues that are
representative of the GA Membership, then the GA Representative will have a
guideline to work with in those discussions.

Once that is done, we can add to the list and bring more subjects to the
table we agree should be asked about and worked on. But IMO we need to start
with their list to be sure our representative is at least prepared for those
issues.

With the time it takes to come to a consensus here, we may only have the
time to address the ones already listed.

Picking a Representative for the GA isn't about that person's views on those
issues. It's about what views the GA wishes him/her to relay to the Task
Force.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
To: "Andy Gardner" <andy@navigator.co.nz>; <ga-udrp@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: [ga-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire


> At 13:15 30/06/01 -0500, Andy Gardner wrote:
>
> >Further questions:
> >
> >1. Should a complainants rights under the UDRP exceed/override the terms
it
> >agreed to under the Registrar/Registrant contract?
> >
> >This question is based on many cases where a complainant was a prior
owner
> >of the domain in question and although clearly without rights in their
> >registration contract (all rights expire if annual fee is not paid), the
> >panelist has taken the name away from the new registrant and awarded it
to
> >the previous owner - totally destroying the new registrants business
plans
> >and investment in the name - with zero compensation - even if the name
was
> >used for an entirely different business. Sometimes this has taken place 6
> >months or more after the name was re-registered.
>
> I feel that the Registrar/Registrant contracts are to be modified,
> specifically to make it clear that Registrant's Names Rights are not
> automatically 'dead" , just because the fees have not been paid on time.
> Of course there should be clarity too for new registrants. Therefore, a
> registrar should not be allowed to "resell" a Domain Name until at least 6
> months have expired.
>
>
> >This is particularly crazy considering the new registration system gives
no
> >information regarding the name's history at registration time, and the
> >registration agreements do not warn that prior registrants may have a
> >perpetual claim on the name.
>
> Correct. Especially when it concerns a Trademarked Name and the previous
> registrant has put the registrar on Notice that re-registering the name to
> another party would be considered as a contributory infringement.
>
>
> >2. Should the complainant or respondent have the right to re-open the
case
> >at a different provider if they can prove that the original panel ignored
> >or modified evidence mentioned in the decision, in order to match the
> >decision they wanted to end up at?
>
> Elementary principles of justice would say so. But there should be a clear
> time limit, or else the Name owner is never secure.
>
> >3. Should panelists be allowed to make arbitrary decisions on other
accused
> >TM infringements of a respondent without any study of facts of those
> >matters, in order to allow them to brand the respondent as a habitual TM
> >infringer - or should such evidence be deemed inadmissible when presented
> >by the complainant (or bought into evidence by the panel themselves).
>
> The Panelists should be allowed to look at all facts that are brought to
> their attention.
> Accusations must be accompanied by evidence in order to be taken into
account.
> Evidence must be studied.
>
> >Which leads to:
> >
> >4. Should panelists be allowed to bring evidence into the proceeding
> >themselves and make decisions based on that evidence, particularly if the
> >parties are not given the opportunity to be heard regarding it?
>
> It sounds grievously wrong. The Panel is a judging body, not a prosecuting
> body. In which case did this happen?
>
> >5. Should panelists be required to include and comment on all evidence
> >submitted by the parties when writing up their decision? (Panelists
> >currently pick out the evidence that suits their decision and ignores
> >whatever evidence that would cause any problems. This can be very
damaging
> >to a respondent as the finding can be used against them in further UDRP
> >cases, and the future panelists may not have access to the original
> >complaint and response.
>
> If the panel is biased against the respondent, an obligation to include
all
> evidence subitted plus their comments on same would be the way to expose
> such bias.
>
>
> >6. Should ICANN be forced to adopt a hands-on approach to the management
of
> >the UDRP process, on a case-by-case basis? (Currently all complaints to
> >ICANN regarding particular cases appears to be ignored - non enforcement
of
> >the ICANN rules regarding the performance and actions of providers).
>
> This is a fundamental question that touches on the need to set up a
> respectable "cyberspace judiciary", witch an appeals process that can
> credibly assume jurisdiction over all trans-border Internet cases.
> Such a Judiciary would become a UN body. It will need a  Treaty and...It's
> gonna cost...  Goodbye simplified "rough justice by email", unless it
would
> create a simplified process specifically to deal with DN disputes.
> WIPO, a UN treaty organization is NOT a judiciary organ by any stretch of
> the imagination.
>
>
> >7. Should a provider be responsible for major drafting work regarding the
> >UDRP? (WIPO - just who's in charge here?)
>
> I don't really understand this question. Could you elaborate, Andy?
>
> >8. If serious flaws in the current UDRP process are exposed and a new
> >system put in place, should prior cases be allowed to be re-heard under
the
> >new rules?
>
> It's a fine balance between the need for justice and the need for (new)
> Registrants to know where they stand.
>
> >9. In cases where it can be shown (and is agreed by an independent review
> >panel) that the panel acted outside the current UDRP rules, should the
> >losing party be allowed to have the case re-opened and examined by a
> >panelist of their choice at the cost of the original provider?
>
> See above.
>
> >10. Should question 9 be retroactive dated back to the start of the UDRP?
>
> See above.
>
> Good questions, though.
>
> --
> 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
>

--
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