Re: UDRP bad decisions (RE: [ga] Candidate positions on UDRP)
At 12:28 04/09/2000 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>Methinks you've left out a category or three...
>- decisions that are obviously "bad"
>- decisions where we can't tell if they are bad or not because the
>respondent didn't reply (in some cases by choice, in others due to lack of
>- decisions that are either obviously or questionably bad but not
>challenged in court because the respondent doesn't have the funds or
>access to good legal representation.
I lumped all of them into "Decisions that some reasonable persons would
challenge or call "bad"" - I guess there are relatively few cases where the
panelist doesn't agree with himself, so there's usually at least a single
person who doesn't want to call the decision "bad".
You and I probably agree on "obvious" in a lot of cases.
The question is how to get from there to the point where we (or our
somehow-selected representatives through ICANN) tell a panelist that his
services are not wanted because we disagree with him too often.
And that's the place I don't have a good suggestion on at the moment.
This is my fifth GA message of the day. Time to be quiet for a while.
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, email@example.com
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html