Re: [nc-udrp] Panelist Quality Control

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

>
> I believe that the criterion for arbitrators is set by each individual
> provider.

Obviously.  The question is, what are the criteria.  Where are the criteria
posted, in the interest of openness and transparency.

WIPO has rejected the application of a professor of intellectual property law
who also has private practice experience in international issues, was one of
WIPO's own panel of experts in drafting the UDRP, and had been a panelist
with eResolution on the one hand; and they maintain as a panelist a professor
of communications who has no legal training or experience of any kind.  There
is something odd about that.

It doesn't matter what the policy and rules say, if there are no objective
criteria for determining who is appointed to interpret them.  The
newzealand.biz decision demonstrates that at least one panelist believes that
having a trademark is not even a requirement, as he expressly held that the
complainant did not have one.

I'm not sure whether I agree that the Task Force has members of various
opinions, since there is virtually no exchange of them in order to determine
whether there are different opinions on any topic here.  If the purpose of
the task force is to match up Terms of Reference to self-selected survey
responders, then there is certainly no need to have anyone with any
experience or expertise here at all.

>I look forward to hearing from each of you very soon.

...with the exception of Ms. Thibault, whose email to this list is currently
being routed to a domain speculator in Korea who picked up eresolution.com,
and I sincerely doubt that anyone bothered to delete her email address from
the distribution list.