Re: [nc-udrp] UDRP Task Force Resurrection
I regret that I'm going to have to miss today's call. My wife was
diagnosed with pneumonia over the weekend and I'll be driving her to a
If anyone takes notes, I'd be grateful for a short summary of what's
For what it's worth, I think experience has revealed serious flaws in the
*procedural* aspects of the UDRP, many of which may not be very
controversial to fix (e.g. moving to mandatory 3-person panels, fixing
notice problems, stopping abuse of provider's ability to write additional
rules that conflict with UDRP, making provider's policies for selection of
arbitrators more transparent). I've listed many suggestions, some likely
more controversial than others, in my paper at
http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/udrp.pdf, which I
sumbitted to this TF some time ago.
Although I also think the substantive part of the UDRP could stand tweaks,
I don't think there's likely to be anything near a consensus for this.
Again, my regrets for the last-minute, but unavoidable, absence.
Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | firstname.lastname@example.org
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 hot here.<--