RE: [nc-udrp] Status

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us>]

I agree it is tough to concentrate on this issue.  But even if "ICANN is up
for grabs", I do not believe the UDRP is.  It raises an interesting
question...Does the UDRP depend on the well-being or existence of ICANN? 

I do not believe it is.  Even if there were no ICANN, which I am not in any
way advocating, because I believe that ICANN is needed (for reasons beyond
the scope of this list), the contracts would still exist (albeit with a
different contracting officer - the DOC), and registrants would still be
subject to the UDRP.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
[mailto:froomkin@law.miami.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 11:44 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: 'nc-udrp@dnso.org'
Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] Status


It's hard to focus on this when the very nature of ICANN is up for
grabs....

On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Does anyone know what the status of the committee is at this point?  Is
> there something we are supposed to be doing?  I am not asking for more
work,
> but I am not sure where we stand right now?
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Director, Policy and Intellectual Property
> NeuLevel, Inc. 
> Loudoun Tech Center
> e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@NeuLevel.biz
> 
> 
> 

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--