Re: [ga-udrp] barcelona and more ducks

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

At 10:16 PM +1200 4/7/01, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>At 16:48 4/07/01 +1000, Rothnie, Warwick wrote:
>>Mallesons Stephen Jaques
>>Confidential communication
>>
>>Jeff Williams said:
>>
>> >Well how about just one duck for the purposes of this post,
>> >Barcelona.com?  >;)
>>
>>OK, so let's assume barcelone.com is wrong, but one case out of 3,000
>>plus doesn't suggest (let alone prove) a completely flawed system even
>>less so now that the system has produced the rulings in brisbanecity.com
>>and brisbane.com.  On this basis, the system seems to be working, not in
>>complete disarray.
>
>No , it is not in complete disarray, but it does produce injustice without
>much possibility of redress.
>A judicial system is not supposed to.
>
>The loss of a working Domain Name is as irreversible as an execution.
>Justice must be part of the expectations, not just an occasional 'bonus" to
>prove that the system "works".
>In order to achieve that, the flaws need to be corrected.

Exactly.

I can see Mr Rothnie running the execution system in the USA. "Well, only 1
person out of the last 3,000 we executed turned out to be innocent, so we
think the system is working.

Sheeesh.

And I would suspect that one in TEN udrp cases are bad decisions.

Of course we can't know for sure until we're allowed to see the complaint
and response as well as the decision. It could be even worse than that.

-- 
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.tldlobby.com
--
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