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

["Miles B. Whitener" <mbw@i-theta.com>]

> On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 02:37:24PM -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:
> > Eric Dierker wrote:-
> > The point is we do not need the UDRP.  The courts are better
at it.
> >
> > Now with that said, the courts may want the UDRP to lessen
their work
> > load.>
> >
> >
> > And to handle small claims. Not everybody has 100K to
gamble...:-)
>
> And to deal with the fact that a court case across national
boundaries
> with different languages may be a very very complex affair...

But it is anyway.  Why are DNS names such a special case?
I am sure you can come up with reasons.  But the fact is that
they aren't any more special legally than any other kind of
unique names.

It seems that some want to endow DNS management with a kind of
psuedo-governmental status, and a global one at that.

>
> In any case, the question of whether we need a UDRP has already
been
> settled -- we do.  The question is how to make it better.

Not everybody agrees with this.


--
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