RE: [nc-udrp] Authoritative Texts of UDRP Decisions

["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

[cc's trimmed]

It seems clear to me that we should in our revisions require that the
decisions be subject to something like the copyleft license.

On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> It was always my impression that the Copyright to those decisions belonged
> to ICANN (although I admit that this was never explicitly stated in
> writing).  Someone may have done this already, but has anyone called
> eresolution to see if we could get the decisions, or if the decisions can be
> hosted elsewhere, or even if they would claim infringement if we copied
> them?
> 
> I know we have tried to address this problem in .us in that we are requiring
> that the decisions be sent to NeuStar to keep on file in the event that this
> happens.  For .biz, we are requesting copies of the STOP proceedings as
> well.
> 
> I do believe that eresolution's decisions should also be made publicly
> available.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Berryhill [mailto:john@johnberryhill.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 11:54 PM
> To: nc-udrp@dnso.org
> Cc: halloran@icann.org; touton@icann.org
> Subject: [nc-udrp] Authoritative Texts of UDRP Decisions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find the silence on the question of copyright in UDRP opinions from the
> DRP representatives to be somewhat baffling, as the question has taken on
> some urgency.  It's a simple question which merits a yes or no answer.
> 
> As of today, the plug appears to have been pulled on eresolution.ca.  Hence,
> there is now no authoritative source of the text of any eResolution
> decision, and all of the links from the ICANN UDRP index to eResolution
> decisions are now broken.  This may come as some relief to certain attorneys
> in New York who were sanctioned by a federal judge this month for having
> brought the cello.com UDRP proceeding in violation of the final order in
> _Cello Holdings v. Lawrence-Dahl Companies_.
> 
> I have become aware that several individuals have privately backed up copies
> of these decisions, and have offered to make them available to me on the
> condition that I not identify them, since these individuals do not want to
> be accused of copyright infringement.  This is a ridiculous way to practice
> law - citation by Napster.
> 
> On the upside, though, I guess we are all free to amend the text of these
> decisions as needed to fit, since nothing cited from an eResolution decision
> can be checked against an authoritative text.
> 
> The ICANN-DRP agreement, which requires DRPs to post their decisions, is
> obviously flawed in that it fails to contemplate the possibility of a DRP
> going belly-up.  While I realize that a similar vulnerability exists due to
> ICANN's failure to implement a registar data escrow system for domain
> registrations, surely it is not a great burden for the authoritative text of
> UDRP decisions to be maintained by ICANN, rather than in potentially
> unstable proprietary databases.
> 
> WIPO posts an express disclaimer on the website which permits copying.  The
> NAF website has no terms of use at all.  CPR-ADR and the Asian DRP coming
> online are too insignificant to worry about.
> 
> Tim?  Does the NAF claim a copyright in NAF UDRP decisions?
> 
> Jim?  Does the NAF require you to sign a release when you write one?
> 
> 
> 

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--