Re[2]: [ga] ICANN benefits

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Kent,

Saturday, April 07, 2001, 11:18:22 AM, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 02:04:44PM -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
>> 
>> If the adjudicators cannot get this right on their own -- and there seems to
>> be considerable evidence that at least they haven't to date -- then methinks
>> we need some explicit guidance added to the UDRP.
>> 
>> In particular:
>> 
>> A satire domain -- say, ibm-sucks.com or Incomplete-But-Marketable.net --
>> is entirely legitimate.

> One of the fundamental problem in that notion, however, is that "satire"
> is an intrinsically subjective judgement.  The UDRP is an arbitration
> proceeding, not a court; the rules of procedure are much simpler, and
> the safeguards are not as elaborate. 

Which is exactly why the UDRP should not in place as a mandatory
option.

The UDRP should be entirely voluntary, since the safeguards that do
not exist in law cannot be provided by the UDRP to the domain owner.

The domain owner should have the option of forcing the complainant to
pursue a court case, instead of losing a UDRP case and then having to
bear the brunt of the cost of a court case in order to prevent the
loss of their domain name after a faulty UDRP decision.

-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com


--
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