Re: [nc-udrp] Call for Votes - Rule 4(k)

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

From: "M. Scott Donahey" <sdonahey@tzllp.com>


> No.

Perhaps since I gave a rationale for the change to 4(k), based on the
reaction of two judges of the Fourth Circuit, someone might post perhaps a
brief rationale the other way.

As Mr. Carmody points out, expecting the registrars to know appellate
deadlines is unreasonable, and some evidence of an actual appeal in progress
should be supplied.

One might assume the intent that the UDRP be subordinate to determinations
under national legal systems would imply that national legal systems be
allowed to run their course, and that the status quo be maintained (pace any
interim orders) during that time.  Is there something missing from that line
of reasoning?