RE: Re[4]: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Ruli ngs

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

At 8:30 AM -0800 28/10/01, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com]
>|> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 8:05 AM
>
>|> was that the registrant should be able to say, "I don't submit to
>|> arbitration on this, if you want to come after me for infringement,
>|> then you must do it in a court that has jurisdiction on this matter."
>
>I see your point and agree. However, on the political  front, almost all
>defendants and every name-squatter, will opt out of the UDRP system by
>default.

But this is because the current system is heavily weighted in favour of the
complainant, and the system allows the panel to make highly questionable
decisions that would not stand up in court. They can do this with little
fear of retribution, as all they need to do is leave conflicting evidence
out of their "findings" and it's hidden from view.

The full evidence in a UDRP needs to be publically available, and findings
subject to peer review.

Some rules regarding precedent need to be established, and providers need
to be forced to stick to the UDRP rules and be beaten with a stick when
they make their own rules up.

Clean up the sytem, open it up and make it fair, and respondents are likely
to stick with it.

-- 
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@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