RE: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review Questionnaire
Title: RE: [nc-udrp] UDRP Review Questionnaire Apologies for tendering comments only so late, and please forgive me if I am raking over old ground. I agree with Milton re the duplication of #20 and "new to replace 41" Other brief comments: >>>>27. Did you feel that the panelist/panelists were impartial and considerate [experienced?] in handling the case? Why or why not? #27: "experienced" is better than "considerate" >>>>>(New question) Should the UDRP provide for any affirmative defenses? Why or why not and if so, what affirmative defenses should be included (laches, acquiescence, generics, etc.)? #10: "generics" probably requires some very brief elaboration. What about "that the domain name consists of a generic term" >>>>>>13. How should such an appeal process work (i.e., how many panelists should be required to preside over the appeal, should a different provider be required, etc.) and how should it be financed (i.e., who should be responsible for the costs, how should the costs be determined, etc.)? #13: what about adding to the parenthetical, "should appeals all be heard by a single centralized institution" (I haven't thought this through, and there would appear arguments both ways, but I suppose one could argue that that could be one way of ensuring greater consistency between providers) >>>>>>>(New)What standard of review should be used on appeal (i.e, de novo, abuse of discretion)?(While I know that these standards are US centric, can anyone think of a way of getting the same point across?) Would it be less US-based to ask "what level of deference should an appellate panel afford initial panel determinations" >>>>>>25a. If your answer to question 25 is no, how do you propose the UDRP should be amended to adequately deal with reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH), from the perspective of both determining RDNH liability and determining the available remedies against a complainant found liable of RDNH.. (Note-I changed the language a bit) #25a: I think I preferred the earlier language that drew a clearer line between (1) the establishing of RDNH and (2) the consequences of such a finding Graeme -----Original Message-----
I have a great deal of trouble with question 20
First, they duplicate each other. |