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

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

This is something I totally agree with.  If the URDP was applied consistently and was objective in nature as opposed to subjective, I would not have a problem with it.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

|>-----Original Message-----
|>From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
|>Behalf Of Andy Gardner
|>Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 6:24 AM
|>To: wg-review@dnso.org
|>Subject: RE: [wg-review] [DNDEF] short quizz 9,10
|>
|>
|>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
|>
|>
|>

--
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