RE: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

On 17:17 06/06/02, Marc Schneiders said:
>On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, at 10:50 [=GMT-0400], John Berryhill wrote:
> > The WLS as currently proposed, contains no protection for IP interests at
> > all,
>
>Or any other interests, except VeriSigns.
>
> > in contrast to every other new service which has been launched since
> > the inception of ICANN.  This is reason enough to send the WLS back for a
> > re-work to explain how they intend to address the concerns of intellectual
> > property owners.
>
>During this revision they should not forget to deal with trademarks that
>expire during the period a 'buyer' is waiting. And certainly not in how to
>deal with new trademarks, acquired by third parties after a 'buyer' bought
>himself the right to wait.

These are interesting features. But first I would like to understand what 
happens in the case of a standard UDRP on a WLSed domain-name. If the 
current DN holder loses, who gets the name? If the WLS holded does not get 
the name he should be allowed to share in the UDRP and refunded. I 
understand this would make the UDRP a tri-party abitration. Does anyone 
heard about such an arbitration? Who should then bear the extra costs?
jfc