RE: [wg-review] [DNDEF] short quizz 9,10

[Andy Gardner <andy@navigator.co.nz>]

At 6:49 pm +0000 2/8/01, bukko wrote:

>The point is we do not need the UDRP.  The courts are better at it.

The UDRP would probably work fine if it provided clearer, hard fast rules
that Arbitrators were required to follow, and provide penalties and
UDRP-based appeal for when Arbitrators step outside the rules, which has
happened frequently.

It is also of little use being able to brand someone a Reverse Domain
Hijacker when there is no prescribed fine or sentence for being found as
such.

Arbitration is fine, when it's run properly. But it needs to be UNIFORM
(funny, that) and UNBIASED.

-- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
--
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