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

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

If you look hard at the list of the companies who have used the UDRP, you
will see that most of the names submitted (I am saying , most, not all) are
pretty egregious misuses or infringements.   When those cases are taken to
court instead of UDRP, they almost always turn out to be more expensive for
both sides and I would project that the outcomes would be largely the same.


But, let's be realistic. "Rules" like law gets applied with interpretation,
don't they? Even courts sometimes find differently, which is why there is an
appeals process.  And there is an appeals process with the UDRP. The loser
can always take the issue to their national court, or the court of
jurisdiction.  

Why isn't that a reasonable approach? 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dassa [mailto:dassa@dhs.org]
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 6:50 PM
To: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [wg-review] [DNDEF] short quizz 9,10


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
--
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