RE: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings

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

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: owner-ga-full@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga-full@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
|> Roeland Meyer
|> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 3:30 AM
|> To: 'Joop Teernstra'; Roeland Meyer
|> Cc: ga@dnso.org
|> Subject: RE: [ga] WIPO Arbitrators Stern In Domain 'Hijacking' Rulings
|>
|>
|> |> From: Joop Teernstra [mailto:terastra@terabytz.co.nz]
|> |> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 3:42 PM
|> |>
|> |> On 13:04 28/10/01 -0800, Roeland Meyer said:
|> |>
|> |> >It is reasonable considering the alternative legal costs,
|> |> but dropping it to
|> |> >$25K US is also reasonable, considering that there is no
|> |> set criteria. In
|> |> >the case of an abusive complaint, which is usually brought
|> |> about by a large
|> |> >corp,
|> |>
|> |> I could justify $25-30 K US, but not higher.
|>
|> From a justification stand-point, any number is hard. It all seems so ...
|> arbitrary. This is the largest problem I have with the entire
|> UDRP process.

Attempting to set a bond at any amount that high is doomed to failure.
Remember, the UDRP is not a court of law.  If people wish to attain higher
damages they will need to take civil action.

The punative amount should be set equal to or just over the total cost of
initiating and proceding with any UDRP action.  Keeps it simple and within
the bounds of possibility.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html