RE: [nc-udrp] Memo re access to UDRP decisions
Be my guest. I wouldn't have any problem with your housing the
decisions, as long as they stay freely available. The only reason we have
the decisions at all is that I was worried they would vanish. I downloaded
all the decisions on one day. The next day, when I went back to get the
graphics, the server was offline. If you take a look at how the decisions
are now displayed on our site, e.g.
http://www.disputes.org/eresolution/decisions/0482.htm you will see that
every decision is missing two graphics that were on the original site.
Perhaps you can put them back.
If you have the physical server eResolution used, I hope that you
will preserve all the data on it. I don't know if they kept case files but
since they had the only all-online system, someone someday might do an
At 08:46 AM 12/4/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>I think you are right. By the way, I don't want to step on any toes, but
>what do you think of the Forum putting the eRes decisions up on our site (if
>ICANN concurs) as the "official" permanent repository?
>Timothy S. Cole
>Director, Internet Dispute Solutions
>National Arbitration Forum
> -----Original Message-----
>From: Ethan Katsh [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:51 PM
>To: Cole, Tim
>Cc: UDRP Task Force
>Subject: 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
> >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
> >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
> >data. If providers are responsible for detailing all of the
> >needed for the search engine to work, that is a significant additional
> >responsibility. It also raises a question as to the accuracy or
> >of search elements, since many of them are subjective and may be
> >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:email@example.com]
> >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.
> >Ethan Katsh
> >Professor and Director
> >Center for Information Technology
> >and Dispute Resolution
> >University of Massachusetts
> >Amherst, MA 01003