RE: [nc-udrp] Memo re access to UDRP decisions
Thanks for your kind note. I am not advocating for any particular
system, but I am advocating for something considerably better than what we
have. I sense that we probably don't disagree on the inadequacies of the
current model and I am optimistic that we could agree on what a new system
would include. If there is a need for incentives for the providers or for
some leadership from ICANN, we should work on that.
At 12:10 PM 12/3/2002 -0600, Cole, Tim wrote:
>Thank you Ethan for all the work you are putting into this important issue.
>Although this isn't a solution, I would like to also note that the Forum now
>has a full text search function included in its decision search options,
>along with parties, domain names, status, dates, etc. at
>http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions.asp. Of course neither the WIPO
>search engine nor the Forum search engine will permit searches of ALL
>decisions. Westlaw and Butterworths Lexis maintain databases with all UDRP
>decisions and LexisNexis is preparing to add them in the near future. Of
>course, those are subscription services, but they do support fairly
>extensive and familiar search engine capability.
>The Forum has also acquired the original eResolution computer server that
>contains all of the eResolution decisions. We have made offers to ICANN to
>provide a permanent home for these on our website with a similar search
>engine, but have yet to receive approval from ICANN to do so.
>I would like to respond to one comment made in your report about incentives
>to participate. Although dispute providers may be competitors on one level,
>I see no reason why that fact would generate opposition to a helpful search
>engine. The true potential obstacle is the means used to collect the search
>data. If providers are responsible for detailing all of the characteristics
>needed for the search engine to work, that is a significant additional
>responsibility. It also raises a question as to the accuracy or consistency
>of search elements, since many of them are subjective and may be interpreted
>differently by different providers or panelists.
>I would also be interested in hearing the input of other potential users
>about the elements identified in the search engine. Do they adequately
>address the issues of importance to parties who may use a search engine?
>Timothy S. Cole
>Director, Internet Dispute Solutions
>National Arbitration Forum
> -----Original Message-----
>From: Ethan Katsh [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 2:42 PM
>To: UDRP Task Force
>Subject: [nc-udrp] Memo re access to UDRP decisions
> During our last conference call, I was asked to add some of my own
>writings to the list of papers the task force would consider. Rather than
>submit something from the past, I have placed a fairly short memo addressed
>to the Task Force at
>http://www.disputes.org/udrp/ It is very focused on a particular problem,
>access to the UDRP decisions of panelists, and suggests that this is one
>area where there are improvements that could and should be made.
>Professor and Director
>Center for Information Technology
>and Dispute Resolution
>University of Massachusetts
>Amherst, MA 01003