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

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

|>-----Original Message-----
|>From: On Behalf Of Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
|>Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 10:49 AM
|>Subject: RE: [wg-review] [DNDEF] short quizz 9,10
|>
|>
|>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? 

The UDRP doesn't have an appeals process.  Taking a disputed resolution into the jurisdiction of a court is taking it outside of the UDRP process.  Any resolution process should have a method of appeal to not do so makes such systems liable to complaints such as we see now in the UDRP.  The appeal process would allow for more consistent resolutions.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
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