RE: [wg-review] 11. IDNH Centers of Interest

["Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

-1/19/01 5:17:02 PM, Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca> wrote:

>I'd say ICANN has now shown itself poor at handling this as well,
bodacioustatas.com
>being the most obvious example I know of. So either we should drop the
URDP altogether
>or rewrite it so that it applies if and only if the complainant has an
obvious
case.
>Whenever there's any question at all, punt to the courts since they're
designed to
>handle such questions, ICANN isn't and WIPO is far from impartial.

Sotiris wrote:-
I'm with Sandy on this wise.  Well put.

These matters need to be addressed ASAP.


Sotiris Sotiropoulos
          Hermes Network, Inc.

Sotiris,
I agree with you, but it has been said before, which court? The plaintiff
and defendant may each have trademarks on different continents to the same
name and who would agree the impartiality of the opponents jurisdiction? I
believe the Hague was suggested as the only truly international court, but I
don't understand why any WIPO impartiality cannot be remedied. What is the
cause of the problems exactly?

By the way, does this fit into 6.procedures or is it off-topic?

Joanna

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html