RE: [nc-udrp] First Draft
I think we have a good list and grouping. I would also expand the "SCOPE"
section below to look at the Dispute Resolution mechanisms developed under
the new unsponsored and sponsored TLDs. I think this is implied, but it
should be more explicit.
A number of the new registries have worked extremely hard in developing
these dispute mechanisms with input from the dispute providers. For
example, under Neulevel's STOP (Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy) which
is very much like the UDRP, but have streamline procedures for the dispute
providers and a difference in burdens of proof. Changes like these may
prove to be worth evaluating as well.
From: Chicoine, Caroline G. [mailto:CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 2:47 PM
To: 'Dan Steinberg'; 'email@example.com'
Subject: RE: [nc-udrp] First Draft
I think this is very helpful. What do others think (especially those we
have not heard from yet)?
From: Dan Steinberg [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 1:08 PM
Subject: [nc-udrp] First Draft
I did a quick review of Caroline's excellent first cut. My review
focused on mapping the existing terms of reference to her document.
As can be seen from the following list, Caroline did an excellent job.
Indeed she went right to the deeper issues in many cases. If we can
agree on a question format, I think we will have no trouble getting this
questionnaire out. As someone who (perhaps foolishly) volunteered to
translate, can I put in a request for 'less is more?" being the writing
For each of the issues raised in the original terms of reference
identified which of Caroline's questions (identified by a number or
numbers in brackets) appeared applicable.
· forum shopping (10)
· publication of complaints and answers (3)
· appeals (15, 5)
· reverse domain name hijacking (9)
· quality of decisions (2a, (indirectly 2d, 16, 18)
· speed of decisions
· precedential affect of decisions within and outside of UDRP (10
· costs (11)
· continuity of decisions among and within panels (10)
· res judicata effect of decisions within and outside the UDRP
· requirements for bad faith (i.e., domain name registration and/or
use) (19, 20)
· fairness of Provider's supplemental rules (2c, 4)
· ability to amend complaint (13 in part, and this issue itself is
also part or the overall issue of procedural due process)
When I look at the issues I tried to find common threads that would
assist us in grouping the questionnaire.
I came up with the following broad categories. Do they seem appropriate?
The first category I came up with is something (for lack of a better
term) I called 'looking like a court'. Its the measure that I as an
individual might apply if I were comparing it to my own court system. We
expect things from our local court systems and I think a good measure of
any proceeding is how people feel it measures up on the expediency/full
· procedural due process
· supplemental rules
· ability to appeal
· publication/visibility of decisions
· speed of decisions and the obvious tradeoff between speed and depth
· reverse domain hijacking
· fairness of decisions
· issue of 'confusingly similar'
· issue of 'bad faith'
· precedential value within UDRP (outside is another issue entirely
that is beyond the scope of our ability to effect change)
· comparison to other dispute resolution proceedings
· possible inclusion of geographic names, personal names, charter
does this grouping help?
SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1 e-mail:email@example.com