Re: [ga] Re: Mansfield Spam on a usenet newsgroup? - Parish the thought..??
I stick by the simple, non-US law-based definitino of
(from Cambridge International Dictionary of English)
to make a judgment in (an argument), usually because
asked to do so by those involved
to have the disagreement solved by an outside person
who has been chosen by both sides
An arbitrator is a person whose official role is to
make a decision between two people or groups who do
The real-world effects of a UDRP decision in the case
of transfer are dramatic. UDRP participants manifest
consent when registering a domain name and by not
choosing to go to national courts.
--- "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D."
> > 5. The footnote below is just plain wrong. Dr.
> > Berryhill appears to confuse enforcement of an
> > "arbitration" award in a US Court as a formal
> > arbitration with the definition of "arbitration."
> > binding decision making process in which both
> > make a presentation and a third party renders a
> > decision based on principles of equity or law is
> > arbitration.
> Someone had better bring this to the attention of
> the folks who wrote the
> UDRP, as they seem to make a distinction between an
> administrative proceeding
> under the UDRP and an arbitration in UDRP Paragraph
> 8. (and, of course, the
> word "binding" is right out in accordance with Rule
> 4) No court has applied
> a standard of review less than _de novo_ to a UDRP
> decision, because a
> "challenge" to a UDRP decision is not really a
> challenge to the UDRP
> decision, but an independent determination under the
> Lanham Act (see, e.g.
> the 1st Circuit's analysis of the corinthians.com
> case, or the Ontario
> Court's determination that the canadian.biz decision
> was right screwy). The
> standard of review applied to a binding arbitration
> is much different than
> the manner that any court has treated a UDRP
> decision, which by its own terms
> is not binding on the parties. In point of fact, a
> UDRP decision is not
> directed at the parties at all - it is directed to
> the registrar, since the
> registrar is the ONLY party who is ordered by a UDRP
> panel to do, or refrain
> from doing, anything at all.
> But, if there is an explanation for the distinction
> between condition (a) and
> condition (b) in Paragraph 8, I'm all ears:
> 8. Transfers During a Dispute.
> a. Transfers of a Domain Name to a New Holder. You
> may not transfer your
> domain name registration to another holder (i)
> during a pending
> administrative proceeding brought pursuant to
> Paragraph 4 or for a period of
> fifteen (15) business days (as observed in the
> location of our principal
> place of business) after such proceeding is
> concluded; or (ii) during a
> pending court proceeding or arbitration commenced
> regarding your domain name
> unless the party to whom the domain name
> registration is being transferred
> agrees, in writing, to be bound by the decision of
> the court or arbitrator.
> Now, under Par. 8 of the UDRP, is a UDRP proceeding
> itself an arbitration?
> If it is, then it sure makes one hash of that
> paragraph. Why use two
> different words for the same thing?
Andrew S. Mansfield
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html