[nc-udrp] task force

["katrina burchell" <Katrina.Burchell@unilever.com>]

{\rtf1\ansi\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fmodern\fcharset0 Courier New;}{\f1\fswiss\fprq2 Arial;}}
{\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue255;}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\cf1\lang1033\f0\fs20\par
\par
I remain willing to help the task force move forward with its report and would welcome seeing some movement in that direction!\par
\par
Katrina\par
\pard\li360\cf0\protect\f1\fs16 -----Original Message-----\par
\protect0\pard\protect\fi-1440\li1800\tx1440\b From:\tab\b0 jse@adamspat.com [SMTP:jse@adamspat.com]\par
\b Sent:\tab\b0 Tuesday, October 08, 2002 7:42 PM\par
\b To:\tab\b0 Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law; John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.\par
\b Cc:\tab\b0 nc-udrp@dnso.org\par
\b Subject:\tab\b0 Re: [nc-udrp] Panelist Quality Control\par
\protect0\pard\protect\li360\f0\fs20\par
Dear All:\par
\par
I believe that the criterion for arbitrators is set by each individual\par
provider.\par
\par
With regard to this inactive list, I have been appointed as the Chair of\par
this Task Force as many of you are aware.  I have spent the last several\par
weeks reviewing the numerous (over 500) emails in my UDRP mail box.  The\par
first task is to determine who of the original Task Force members is still\par
willing to participate in this process.  The next task will be to look at\par
the Terms of Reference document and compare that to the survey results.\par
Please understand that the Survey is NOT intended to control the outcome of\par
our recommendations in the areas identified in the terms of reference.\par
\par
So, if the recipient's of this message will respond by no later than Oct. 12\par
and let us know who is willing to move forward with this Task Force.  It is\par
my hope to have an interim report/progress report ready by the NC meeting in\par
November 2002.  I look forward to hearing from each of you and I am hopeful\par
that you all will participate.  I believe the Task Force is populated with\par
many differing views and many good minds.  Together I feel confident that we\par
can provide the NC and, ultimately, the Board with a solid recommendation on\par
the UDRP.\par
\par
I look forward to hearing from each of you very soon.\par
\par
Kind regards.\par
\par
J. Scott Evans\par
ADAMS, SCHWARTZ & EVANS, P.A.\par
jse@adamspat.com\par
704-375-9249\par
----- Original Message -----\par
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>\par
To: "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <john@johnberryhill.com>\par
Cc: <nc-udrp@dnso.org>\par
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 1:37 PM\par
Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] Panelist Quality Control\par
\par
\par
> I can tell you that whatever the criteria are, WIPO appears to believe I\par
> do not meet them, as they rejected my application....\par
>\par
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:\par
>\par
> >\par
> > Nobody seems to know the answers to the questions I had asked earlier\par
about\par
> > what are the criteria for accrediting panelists, or what training\par
materials\par
> > are provided to panelists, which is somewhat odd considering that UDRP\par
> > panelists are on this busy task force.  The following case is an\par
interesting\par
> > study in what happens when panelists do not actually read the policies\par
under\par
> > which they are making decisions.\par
> >\par
> > http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/dbiz2002-00270.html\par
> >\par
> > This is a .biz STOP decision.  The .biz STOP policy requires the domain\par
name\par
> > to be identical to the complainant's mark (the "confusingly similar"\par
language\par
> > was not included in .biz STOP).\par
> >\par
> > The domain name is "newzealand.biz", and concerning the trademark claim,\par
the\par
> > panelist unequivocally finds:\par
> >\par
> > "To summarize its determination in this proceeding, the Panel rejects\par
> > Complainant's claim to trademark and service mark rights in 'NEW\par
ZEALAND'."\par
> >\par
> > And then the panelist orders transfer of the domain name.\par
> >\par
> > The reason for the transfer was the panelist's understanding of the\par
rules for\par
> > determining whether further challenges of multiple claimants would be\par
> > permitted after a transfer has been ordered.  That rule, which is based\par
on\par
> > whether the complainant has legitimate rights of any kind, was used by\par
this\par
> > panelist to write the trademark requirement completely out of the\par
policy.\par
> >\par
> >\par
> >\par
> >\par
>\par
> --\par
> Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org\par
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm\par
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA\par
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm\par
>                       -->It's very hot here.<--\par
>\par
>\par
\par
\par
}