<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Re: [ga-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire
No one should use the UDRP -- it's a sham and a fraud.
Bill Lovell
Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> Should non legacy TLD use the UDRP?
>
> If you say not, it means that the money advantage obtained by NSI from this
> system is more important than TM Holders rights.
>
> If you say yes, it means they should participate to the debate as such...
>
> Jefsey
>
> On 10:04 30/06/01, DannyYounger@cs.com said:
> >The questions cited below have been put forth by Milton Mueller, and seem to
> >be a good starting point.
> >http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/tor-udrp/Arc00/bin00000.bin
> >
> >001. To what extent are panel decisions consistent with applicable law?
> >002. Are decisions consistent across panelists and dispute resolution
> >service providers, and if not, what can be done about it?
> >003. Is the potential for abuse of claimed common law rights so great that
> >the policy should be limited to registered marks?
> >004. Should generic names, geographical names, initials and numbers be
> >protected from claims by any trademark or name rights' owner, regardless of
> >the owner's fame?
> >005. Is the high respondent default rate due to a lack of real and timely
> >notice of complaints and/or a lack of time to respond?
> >006. Do complainants and respondents have parity in post-UDRP access to
> >the courts?
> >007. Should the ability to challenge a name under the UDRP expire after a
> >single registrant has held the name for a specified period of time?
> >008. Should there be an internal review mechanism (such as an appeal
> >panel drawn from all the Providers) to overturn clearly erroneous decisions
> >without resorting to courts?
> >009. Does Complainant selection of the resolution service provider lead to
> >"forum shopping" that tends to bias decisions against Respondents?
> >010. Should registrars, rather than complainants, pre-select the
> >Provider(s) to whom all disputes over names registered with them will be
> >referred?
> >011. Do policies for accrediting or de-accrediting dispute resolution
> >service providers need to be specified in greater detail? Are any providers'
> >supplemental rules inconsistent with either due process and/or the ICANN
> >rules?
> >012. Should the UDRP be amended to enable respondents to initiate a
> >"declaratory judgment" regarding their "rights and legitimate interests" in a
> >name?
> >
> >What other questions should be added to this list?
> >--
> >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@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
--
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|