<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] Some other ideas about the questions... [ga-udrp] UDRP Questionna ire
oops, didn't mean to overlook those suggestions. I was just editing into an
email, which was a quick but not comprehensive step on my part. Apologies.
Marilyn
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 12:02 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: 'wsl@cerebalaw.com'; Jefsey Morfin; ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Some other ideas about the questions... [ga-udrp] UDRP
Questionna ire
Marilyn and all assembly members,
You seem to have left our that there have already been several
additional questions added to Miltons list, by myself (7), Jefsey (1)
Chris ( 3 or 4)... Those can be found in the ga-udrp@dnso.org
list archives. You might want to compile a "Complete" list of the
thus far suggested questions so as to be more inclusive, accurate
and accountable....
Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
> Bill, you do feel strongly about that subject! :-)
>
> I know there are a lot of opinions on this topic, and I don't want to
start
> a range war. I'm not commenting on whether a questionnaire is a good idea
or
> not, but I agree that real verifiable facts are GOOD! I'm a little
> concerned that all questionnaires that might be distributed (I said this
> about the WHOIS questionnaire as well) should be considered probably
> qualitative input. But that doesn't mean it isn't useful as background,
> etc.
>
> I'll try to add a question or perhaps some other ideas/clarifications to
> Milton's list. They are in caps inserted into a copy of Milton's initial
> list with a comment in [] if needed. I understand that Milton may not
> accept my friendly amendments :-) and could offer them as stand alone
> questions, should you prefer, Milton.
>
> A well qualified statistically valid study will take time and money, and
> expertise which should be neutral and verifiable. BUT, getting some ideas
> out via initial methods like this can be a great start to improving what
is
> known, what is believed, what is understood, and what still mystical.
>
> Marilyn
>
> > >001. To what extent are panel decisions consistent with applicable
> lawS? [I thought it better to note that there are multiple laws, and of
> course, jurisdictional issues; I am not a lawyer, so Milton in particular
> should comment on whether the "s" is needed.]
> > >002. Are decisions REGARDING CASES WITH SIMILAR
CHARACTERISTICS/FACTS
> consistent across panelists and dispute resolution
> > >service providers, and if not, what can be done about it? IS
INFORMATION
> AVAILABLE IN AGGREGATE FORM FROM EACH OF THE PROVIDERS WHICH WOULD ALLOW
> SUCH AN ANALYSIS?
> > >003. Is the potential for abuse of claimed common law rights so
great
> that
> > >the policy should be limited to registered marks? [THIS IS A COMMENT:
> BOTH THE U.S. AND THE UK, TO MY KNOWLEDGE ACCEPT COMMON LAW RIGHTS.]
> > >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? AND IF SO, IS THE CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE LAWS?
> > >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? IS INFORMATION
> AVAILABLE, IN ADDITION, ABOUT HOW MANY INCIDENTS OF INCOMPLETE OR
INACCURATE
> REGISTRATION INFORMATION HAVE HINDERED NOTIFICATION?
> > >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? IF SO, WHAT IS THE PROCESS TO DETERMINE
> "CLEARLY ERRONEOUS DECISIONS" ACROSS EACH OF THE PROVIDERS?
> > >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? IF SO, SINCE LIABILITY WILL ACCOMPANY SUCH A ROLE, WHAT KIND
OF
> LIABILITY SHOULD THE REGISTRARS ASSUME? DAMAGES, COSTS, ETC.?
> > >011. Do policies for accrediting or de-accrediting dispute
resolution
> > >service providers need to be specified in greater detail? WOULD IT BE
> USEFUL TO CONSIDER A STANDARD SET OF CRITERIA FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR
> PANELISTS WHICH ALL PROVIDERS MUST MEET TO BE ICANN CERTIFIED? 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?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William S. Lovell [mailto:wsl@cerebalaw.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 2:24 PM
> To: Jefsey Morfin
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: 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
> --
> 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
--
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@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
--
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
>>>
|