DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>


From: "J. Scott Evans" <jse@adamspat.com>

> Michael:
> My hope is to receive an objective summary of the paper.

[please use the nc-udrp@dnso.org email address only, for some reason by
ddhs.com email address has sneaked into the cc: line, when I specifically
requested that TF email go to the other (filtered and sorted) email inbox]

I have great respect for Mr. Donahey.  I would suggest that we have Professor
Froomkin provide an "objective" summary of Mr. Donahey's article criticizing
Prof. Geist's "Fair.com" article.  And if you fail to appreciate the irony of
that, then please understand the irony of your request above.

We are all intelligent adults who are each personally engaged in dealing with
the UDRP on a regular basis.  As part of our professional duty to remain
competent in our areas of practice, I would expect that it is our obligation
to keep abreast of the literature in the field.  If anyone here hasn't read
these articles, they don't belong here.  We know what's in them, we have our
views, shaped by lenses of our own experiences as panelists, udrp providers,
complainant representatives and respondent representatives.  Those are what
shape our angle on these papers.  We should share our views to come to an
understanding of those perspectives which are shaped by the parts of this
process for which we do not have experience.  Very few people know how the
UDRP looks to someone who has done as many defenses as I and my colleagues
who specialize in defending them.  Very few people have had Mr. Donahey's
perspective as a panelist who has presided over as many of these disputes as
he has (and certainly Mr. Carmody is a major heavy hitter as well, but I'm
not counting).  Very few people know what the process looks like from the
perspective of a DRP provider who has gone bankrupt, as our eResolution
participants have.

Any one of us can look at any of the papers and say, for example, "Oh, there
goes that nutcase Froomkin frothing away about his notion of divine justice
like a prophet in the desert sun too long" or "There goes the usual INTA
party line of cybersquatting as a crime against humanity, designed to line up
gullible clients to empty their pockets".  I believe the cartoonish
depictions of some of the folks involved in this circus arise from a failure
to appreciate the experiences that have shaped those opinions.

Again to use Mr. Donahey as an example, I think he and I probably have
divergent views about what reforms may or may not be needed, but maybe not.
The remarkable thing is that he and I have been participants in quite a few
UDRP proceedings in our respective roles.  In considering what reforms make
sense, I sincerely want to know what these things look like from his end, and
believe that he can learn some things from what things look like from my end.
Now, we have Mr. Donahey quite forcefully lately writing opinions in which he
expresses a wearied disdain for the practice of supplemental filings, while
we have Mr. Cole soliciting them at $250 a pop.  It would be fascinating to
understand, by a dialogue between Mr. Cole and Mr. Donahey, the rationale for
Mr. Donahey's refusal to buy what Mr. Cole is selling, and Mr. Cole's
rationale for selling what Mr. Donahey won't buy.  But only by understanding
the unique perspectives that everyone here has to contribute can any of us
reach anything approximating an "objective" view.

But, really, any of us who is not familiar with the literature in this area
ought to find another hobby.  Based on what we've already read, and our
experiences, it would be great to hear the "top five gripes" of complainants,
panelists, providers, registrars, and respondents

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>