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

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

>At 16:23 8/02/01 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
>>> 2) there needs to be a feedback mechanism that corrects for really bad
>>> decisions.
>>>
>>> Excellent.
>>
>>But very tricky.  Remember that one of the goals of the UDRP is to
>>*not* have it be a substitute for the law, and if you build, for
>>example, an elaborate appeals process, you are more and more making it
>>into a legal system.
>>
>
>In the long run there is no way to avoid this. You either create a global
>system that provides rough justice, or you create one that provides some
>needed finesse.
>
>One cheap way to help speed this up is a central archive on the web where
>all decisions are published and where jurists from around the world and
>from both sides of the fence can provide their commentaries on the decisions.

Now THAT'S a good idea, and one that can be implemented easily. A UDRP
Judicial Review site.

Only problem I can see is that you need not only the decisions, but also
the original complaint and response. Many decisions, I suspect, don't even
mention important portions of those documents.

-- 
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