Re: [nc-udrp] Not Forum Rules, but the UDRP

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

From: "Cole, Tim" <tcole@arb-forum.com>
>
> It would seem that the drafters
> of the UDRP, who included a window of time for receipt of an initial fee
for
> the Complaint, would have included one for the Response if that had been
> their intention.

It would seem, then, that Complainants and Respondents are treated
differently concerning the payment of fees.  If there is a rationale for
providing Complainants a ten day period for fee payment after filing, and
providing Respondents no such period, I need some help understanding why.

> The Forum did not draft these Rules, but is charged with the fair
> administration of proceedings under them.

This Task Force, however, is charged with taking a look at the Rules and how
they are administered, hence my question is directed to Mr. Cole the UDRP
Review TF member, not Mr. Cole the NAF official.  The way that the Forum
administers this rule differs substantially from the way that WIPO
administers this rule.  One can only conclude that either the NAF or WIPO is
wrong, because they can't both be right if there is only one "fair" way to
interpret the payment rules.  If WIPO is habitually getting this wrong, then
that is worth knowing.

You have hit the nail directly on the head by identifying this disparate
treatment as a defect of the UDRP, not the Forum Rules.  Now, if only we can
figure out whether there is a body somewhere that might be interested in
knowing whether the rules might need a tweak.... Hmmm..... let me see.....
there must be someone.

It is also worth knowing if anyone on the TF can think of a reason why the
parties should be treated differently concerning fee payments.  I'm willing
to believe there might be a reason.  But in the absence of a reason, then it
is simply unequal treatment with no justification.  Isn't that the kind of
issue we should be looking at here?

John