<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review
I apologize if my submissions were inappropriate. I thought that they might
stimulate others to think of questions that I had not considered. In
response to the suggestion, I propose that the following issues be addressed
in the panel questionnaire:
1. Should panelists be disqualified from representing parties before the
UDRP?
2. Should panelists' law firms be disqualified from representing parties
before the UDRP?
3. Should panelists (and their law firms) be disqualified from representing
parties in domain name disputes before national courts?
4. Is it more important to you that the process be expeditious, or that the
process be thorough? Explain.
5. Is it more important to you that process be inexpensive, or that the
process be thorough? Explain.
6. Do you feel that the fees being charged by the providers are appropriate?
If not, how do you feel they should be changed?
7. Do you feel that the fees being paid to the panelists are appropriate? If
not, how do you feel they should be changed?
8. Should some body be able to establish a rule of law that all panelists
would be required to follow?
Best regards.
M. Scott Donahey
Tomlinson Zisko Morosoli & Maser LLP
200 Page Mill Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Phone: (650) 325-8666
Fax: (650) 324-1808
msd@tzmm.com
www.tzmm.com
"This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of
the original message."
-----Original Message-----
From: CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com [mailto:CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 11:55 AM
To: MSD@tzmm.com; nc-udrp@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review
While I appreciate people forwarding such articles for us to read, for the
authors of such articles, could you please advise us what if any additional
issues (not your conclusions) are covered by your papers that are not
addressed in the current questionnaire and how you propose they be added.
Likewise if you believe an issue is covered but you do not like the way it
was presented in the questionnaire, please provide us with your alternate
suggestions.
-----Original Message-----
From: Donahey, M. Scott [mailto:MSD@tzmm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 12:54 PM
To: 'nc-udrp@dnso.org'
Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review
Colleagues:
As has Professor Froomkin, I have given much thought to revising the
UDRP process. Some of those thoughts have been previously expressed in
articles. I forward these articles to you for your consideration. I would
appreciate receiving your comments to the attached. Thank you.
<<MSD0446.DOC>> <<MSD0507.DOC>> <<MSD0520.DOC>> <<MIL2047.DOC>>
Best regards.
M. Scott Donahey
Tomlinson Zisko Morosoli & Maser LLP
200 Page Mill Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Phone: (650) 325-8666
Fax: (650) 324-1808
msd@tzmm.com
www.tzmm.com
"This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and
destroy all copies of the original message."
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|