Re: Trademarks vs DNS -Reply -Reply

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

> Mandatory Arbitration, Mandatory Mediation - nothing really but a different
> flavor.  The point is the word Mandatory.
> 
> That is what makes this flavor leave such a bad taste in my mouth.

I'm a bit confused about all this. Not being a lawyer I don't know what is
better, if it's a court system or mediation or arbitration.

In any case, if I have a domain name (good faith or cybersquat or whatever),
and somebody sues me, then I get a court summons to defend myself, in other
words, even if it doesn't say it, no matter what I *will* be subject to
mandatory court proceedings (court proceedings will be mandatory should the
attacker decide to go via the courts).

My reasoning says that court systems are in general sanctioned by the
state, and they are supposed to be fair and all that... What I do know is
that if I get threatened by court proceedings, if it's a clear cut thing,
then there probably won't be a problem any way it goes, however if there is
actually a case to be made for both sides, going through the standard legal
system is going to be expensive (and possibly slow). If one of the two
parties decides that they want the courts, then the other party is dragged
into the court system (it gets mandated).
However if there is a cheaper/faster system available
(arbitration/mediation) and it's NOT mandatory, it would only be used when
both parties agree to use it.

If I'm a small guy with a domain name and IBM decides it wants my domain
name and (for whatever reason) there are some arguments in favour of IBM
(also some arguments in favour of me), I know that I won't be able to afford
court proceedings compared to what IBM might throw at me.

If arbitration/mediation is mandatory should one of the two parties want it
(because if neither of them want it they'll agree to skip it and go to court
anyway), then it might be cheaper better.

I'm a bit fence-sitting about this, but as far as I see it, putting in
language for mandatory arbitration/mediation just means changing the default
order of means available:

Default: If either of the parties decides it wants the courts, then the
other is mandated into the court. If not, then they can both agree for
mediation/arbitration.

With mandatory mediation/arbitration: If either of the parties decides it
wants mediation/arbitration, then the other is mandated to agree to it. If
not, then they can both agree to use the courts.

As far as arbitration goes it's just a man with a silly wig and robes
(maybe without the fancy dress) deciding who is right. With the courts, it's
just another man with a silly wig and robes deciding who is right. What does
one man have over the other? I would imagine that any arbitration/mediation
system setup would work online and the mediator/arbitrator would be a
knowledgeable person in domain name issues.
Why do you prefer a mandatory court system instead?

(I could very well have it all wrong).

Yours, John Broomfield.