[ga] Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Questionnaire

["John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <john@johnberryhill.com>]

From: "Dan Steinberg" <synthesis@videotron.ca>
>  John Berryhill is here to represent respondents.  But John does
> not know every respondent, let alone the potential respondents.  So I got
to
> thinking 'what constitutes a respondent?' The one thing they all have is a
> domain name

80% of the time, they end up without one, but that is not a uniformly bad
thing. :-)

My nightmare scenario is that the respondent in this case ends up with all
our email addresses:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1286.html
"DiTucci's many communications, demands, threats, attempts to derail this
process, unfounded speculations, and ad hominem attacks have no place here --
other than to confirm that DiTucci is attempting in this specific proceeding
to play well outside the foul lines. "

(if you haven't read that decision, and you need a good chuckle, that one is
a riot)

I've circulated the URL to other attorneys who have represented multiple
respondents in UDRP cases, but I would hate to wade through too many
incoherent rants, present company excepted and all rants therefrom welcomed.

John



--
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