<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: Summaries [Was Re: [nc-udrp] RE: UDRP Materials -URGENT PLEAS EREPLY UPON RECEIPT]
i've tried to keep up with selections on this list since the
teleconference but I must admit I have falled hopelessly behind in the
dialog.
Is there something left that no one has picked up yet?
I would be happy to do anything that is still available. I know
Professor Froomkin's paper is well-covered but I'm honestly not sure
what still remains.
M. Scott Donahey wrote:
>As Professor Froomkin has given us an executive summary of his paper, I
>shall undertake one for that of Professors Helfer and Dinwoodie, unless
>there is some objection.
>
>Best regards.
>
>M. Scott Donahey
>Tomlinson Zisko LLP
>200 Page Mill Rd.
>Palo Alto, CA 94306
>Phone: (650) 325-8666
>Fax: (650) 324-1808
>sdonahey@tzllp.com
>www.tzllp.com
>
>Our firm name has been changed to Tomlinson Zisko LLP. My new e-mail
>address is sdonahey@tzllp.com, although e-mail sent to my old e-mail
>address will continue to be delivered to me.
>
>This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
>contain confidential and privileged information which is protected by the
>attorney-client privilege or other grounds for confidentiality or
>non-disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution by
>any means is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
>contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
>message.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: froomkin@law.miami.edu [mailto:froomkin@law.miami.edu]
>Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 1:10 PM
>To: jse@adamspat.com
>Cc: sdonahey@tzllp.com; nc-udrp@dnso.org; CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com;
>sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com; ndundas@africaip.com; harris@cabase.org.ar;
>michael@palage.com; philip.sheppard@aim.be; katsh@legal.umass.edu;
>carmody@lawyer.com; tcole@arb-forum.com; jberryhill@ddhs.com;
>mwaldbaum@salans.com; erik.wilbers@wipo.int; sythesis@videotron.ca;
>joonh@chollian.net; gdinwood@kentlaw.edu; ramesh@mimos.my;
>faia@amauta.rep.net.pe; DNSO.SECRETARIAT@dnso.org
>Subject: Summaries [Was Re: [nc-udrp] RE: UDRP Materials -URGENT PLEASE
>REPLY UPON RECEIPT]
>
>
>I will be happy to take whatever paper you wish. In so doing, it would
>be helpful to know what you consider to be an 'objective' summary. To
>anchor this discussion I offer a no doubt quite biased summary of my
>paper for your critique. Please let me know how it differs from what you
>have in mind:
>
>+++Start++
>
>Summary of A.Michael Froomkin, ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"
>-- Causes and (Partial) Cures, 67 Brooklyn Law Review 605 (2002),
>available online http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/udrp.pdf
>
>The author, a participant in both the WIPO and UDRP drafting processes,
>provides a detailed comparison of the UDRP to WIPO's prior proposals for a
>domain name dispute resolution procedure. He argues that compared to the
>attention paid to the substantive parts of the UDRP, the procedural
>provisions received insufficient attention.
>
>He advocates the seventeen following changes in the procedural parts of
>the UDRP:
>
>1. The UDRP should be changed to remove any incentive for arbitration
>providers to be "plaintiff-friendly," and to equalize both sides'
>influence on the selection of the arbitrators.
>
>2. Plausible claims of arbitration-provider bias need an appropriate
>forum.
>
>3. Parties need enhanced means to get information about arbitrators'
>possible conflicts of interest and to act on that information.
>
>4. Complainants should be required to post a small bond that would be
>forfeited in the event of a finding that the complaint was brought in bad
>faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.
>
>5. Consumers should have access to an authoritative copy of the UDRP in
>their national language.
>
>6. Providers' methods of recruiting and assigning arbitrators should be
>open and auditable. Some thought should be given to the issues of panelist
>training, qualification, and selection, especially with an eye towards
>ensuring a broad pool of arbitrators, and removing opportunities for
>provider manipulation of panelist selection.
>
>7. Complaints and replies should be published online along with decisions
>in order to increase confidence in the justice of outcomes, subject to
>redaction of confidential business information which should be segregated
>in limited exhibits. Providers should be required to archive all briefs
>and exhibits for several years, and to make them available after a
>reasonable time to researchers and others who want to study them, with
>some provision for redaction of the most sensitive personal and financial
>data.
>
>8. UDRP Arbitrators should be instructed even more explicitly as
>to what constitutes meeting the complainant's burden of proof.
>
>9. The UDRP should specify that neither settlement negotiations nor
>solicited offers of sale constitute evidence of registrant bad faith.
>
>10. Either the UDRP should spell out in some detail what sort of evidence
>will be considered proof of the existence of a common law mark, or the
>UDRP should be limited to registered marks.
>
>11. UDRP decisions should be final within the system -- any complaint
>that elicits a reply should not be subject to a "dismissal without
>prejudice" that invites complainants to try and try again.
>
>12. The UDRP should not allow parties even to attempt to undermine a final
>decision on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction.
>
>13. The rules should require actual notice or greater efforts reasonably
>calculated to achieve actual notice, especially in countries with inferior
>postal systems.
>
>14. Given that many respondents are consumers or small businesses, the
>minimum time to respond to a complaint should be increased to sixty days
>to reflect the amount of time it takes to locate and brief counsel,
>collect facts, and write a brief to which no amendments are permitted.
>
>15. Complainants should be penalized for filing lengthy attachments and
>exhibits in an attempt to evade word limits, and for submitting most
>non-digitized material. Either behavior should entitle complainants to
>extra time on a graduated scale depending on the severity of the offense.
>
>16. Providers need to be prevented from writing supplemental rules that
>violate the UDRP or unfairly favor either party. Parties need a means to
>challenge supplemental rules, and ICANN or some other party needs to be
>ready to decide these challenges quickly.
>
>17. Procedures need to be created to help unrepresented parties represent
>themselves more effectively, and especially to help them select an
>arbitrator for three member panels.
>
>++finish++
>
>On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, J. Scott Evans wrote:
>
>
>
>>Michael:
>>
>>I am afraid I may have offended you and that was not my intention. I
>>
>>
>simply
>
>
>>think it would be useful to have a new set of eyes on your paper for
>>preparing the summary. I have stated on the calls that I want the
>>
>>
>summaries
>
>
>>to be objective, just the facts. That request went to everyone, not just
>>you.
>>
>>I do not agree that the surveys are a waste of time. That being said, I
>>would never want you to work on part of the project if that is how you
>>
>>
>feel.
>
>
>>Accordingly, if you would like to work on summarizing one of the other 11
>>papers, we'd be more than happy for your kind assistance.
>>
>>Again, no ill-will or insult meant by my earlier message and I apologize
>>
>>
>if
>
>
>>I have offended you.
>>
>>I look forward to hearing which paper you'd like to assist in summarizing.
>>
>>Regards.
>>
>>J. Scott
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
>>To: "J. Scott Evans" <jse@adamspat.com>
>>Cc: "M. Scott Donahey" <sdonahey@tzllp.com>; <nc-udrp@dnso.org>;
>><CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>; <sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>;
>><ndundas@africaip.com>; <harris@cabase.org.ar>; <michael@palage.com>;
>><philip.sheppard@aim.be>; <katsh@legal.umass.edu>; <carmody@lawyer.com>;
>><tcole@arb-forum.com>; <jberryhill@ddhs.com>; <mwaldbaum@salans.com>;
>><erik.wilbers@wipo.int>; <sythesis@videotron.ca>; <joonh@chollian.net>;
>><gdinwood@kentlaw.edu>; <ramesh@mimos.my>; <faia@amauta.rep.net.pe>;
>><DNSO.SECRETARIAT@dnso.org>
>>Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 3:13 PM
>>Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] RE: UDRP Materials -URGENT PLEASE REPLY UPON
>>
>>
>RECEIPT
>
>
>>
>>
>>>Thank you for the comment on my objectivity. I thought the point of the
>>>summaries was to list the suggestions, in which case I really cannot see
>>>the point of your complaint. If the point of the summaries is to
>>>editorialize on them, then I object to the procedure.
>>>
>>>I think the survey is a waste of time, and the summaries of it doubly
>>>
>>>
>so.
>
>
>>>If I'm going to summarize anything, I'll take a paper - but I won't
>>>editorialize on it in the "summary".
>>>
>>>
>>>On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, J. Scott Evans wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Michael:
>>>>
>>>>My hope is to receive an objective summary of the paper. I appreciate
>>>>
>>>>
>>your
>>
>>
>>>>willingness to assist; however, I would prefer that you help out with
>>>>another paper or, in the alternative, help with the remaining survey
>>>>results. There will be plenty of time during our dialogue for you to
>>>>advocate the position(s) set forth in your paper.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for your continued participation and I hope you feel better
>>>>
>>>>
>soon.
>
>
>>>>J. Scott
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law"
>>>>
>>>>
>><froomkin@law.miami.edu>
>>
>>
>>>>To: "M. Scott Donahey" <sdonahey@tzllp.com>
>>>>Cc: <jse@adamspat.com>; <nc-udrp@dnso.org>;
>>>>
>>>>
>><CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com>;
>>
>>
>>>><sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com>; <ndundas@africaip.com>;
>>>><harris@cabase.org.ar>; <michael@palage.com>;
>>>>
>>>>
><philip.sheppard@aim.be>;
>
>
>>>><katsh@legal.umass.edu>; <carmody@lawyer.com>; <tcole@arb-forum.com>;
>>>><jberryhill@ddhs.com>; <mwaldbaum@salans.com>;
>>>>
>>>>
><erik.wilbers@wipo.int>;
>
>
>>>><sythesis@videotron.ca>; <joonh@chollian.net>; <gdinwood@kentlaw.edu>;
>>>><ramesh@mimos.my>; <faia@amauta.rep.net.pe>;
>>>>
>>>>
><DNSO.SECRETARIAT@dnso.org>
>
>
>>>>Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 8:28 AM
>>>>Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] RE: UDRP Materials -URGENT PLEASE REPLY UPON
>>>>
>>>>
>>RECEIPT
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So would I ;>
>>>>>PS. Apologies for missing the call. I caught my wife's bug.
>>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, M. Scott Donahey wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I would be happy to prepare an executive summary of Professor
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>Froomkin's
>>
>>
>>>>>>paper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Best regards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>M. Scott Donahey
>>>>>>Tomlinson Zisko LLP
>>>>>>200 Page Mill Rd.
>>>>>>Palo Alto, CA 94306
>>>>>>Phone: (650) 325-8666
>>>>>>Fax: (650) 324-1808
>>>>>>sdonahey@tzllp.com
>>>>>>www.tzllp.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Our firm name has been changed to Tomlinson Zisko LLP. My new
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>e-mail
>>
>>
>>>>>>address is sdonahey@tzllp.com, although e-mail sent to my old
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>e-mail
>>
>>
>>>>>>address will continue to be delivered to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This email message is for the sole use of the intended
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>recipient(s)
>
>
>>and
>>
>>
>>>>may
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>contain confidential and privileged information which is protected
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>by
>>
>>
>>>>the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>attorney-client privilege or other grounds for confidentiality or
>>>>>>non-disclosure. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>distribution by
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>any means is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>please
>>
>>
>>>>>>contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>original
>>
>>
>>>>>>message.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>From: jse@adamspat.com [mailto:jse@adamspat.com]
>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 7:51 AM
>>>>>>To: nc-udrp@dnso.org; CCHICOINE@thompsoncoburn.com;
>>>>>>sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com; ndundas@africaip.com;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>jse@adamspat.com;
>
>
>>>>>>harris@cabase.org.ar; froomkin@law.miami.edu; michael@palage.com;
>>>>>>philip.sheppard@aim.be; sdonahey@tzllp.com; katsh@legal.umass.edu;
>>>>>>carmody@lawyer.com; tcole@arb-forum.com; jberryhill@ddhs.com;
>>>>>>mwaldbaum@salans.com; erik.wilbers@wipo.int;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>sythesis@videotron.ca;
>
>
>>>>>>joonh@chollian.net; gdinwood@kentlaw.edu; ramesh@mimos.my;
>>>>>>faia@amauta.rep.net.pe
>>>>>>Cc: DNSO.SECRETARIAT@dnso.org
>>>>>>Subject: UDRP Materials -URGENT PLEASE REPLY UPON RECEIPT
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dear All:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My apologies again for the technical glitch that kept you all from
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>receiving
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>this message yesterday. As we agreed on the call earlier, please
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>review
>>
>>
>>>>the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>materials listed in this message and attached
>>>>>>hereto. By Wednesday, December 11, 2002, everyone should identify
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>>area
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>in which they wish to concentrate their efforts as we distill this
>>>>>>information. Essentially, I envision two groups: 1)
>>>>>>working on the summarizing and identifying issues presented in the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>11
>>
>>
>>>>papers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>listed below and 2) another group working with the survey
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>responses.
>
>
>>>>>>Please post all discussion to the list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thank you again for your time and dedication.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Regards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>J. Scott
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>>>>--
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A. The most current version of the "UDRP Review and Evaluation,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>Terms
>>
>>
>>>>>>of Reference" document can be found at
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.NC-tor-UDRP-Review-Evaluation.html
>>
>>
>>>>>>B. DNSO UDRP Questionnaire (includes French and Spanish links) -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20011107.UDRP-Review-Questionnaire.html
>>
>>
>>>>>>C. All responses (155) per question can be found at
>>>>>>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/udrp1.txt
>>>>>>Each individual response per questionnaire can be found at
>>>>>>http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/udrp2.txt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>D. ICANN UDRP Questionnaire (see attachment below)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>E. Responses to ICANN Questionnaire (see attachment below)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>F. Task Force summaries (see attachments below)
>>>>>>Katrina Burchell (1-9, 56-65)
>>>>>>J. Scott Evans (25-32)
>>>>>>Maxim H. Waldbaum (108-115)
>>>>>>Prof. Dr. Hong (124-131)
>>>>>>M. Scott Donahey (66-73)
>>>>>>James A. Carmody (82-89)
>>>>>>Neil Dundas (9-16)
>>>>>>Jeffrey J. Neuman (17-24)
>>>>>>Timothy S. Cole (90-98)
>>>>>>Graeme Dinwoodie (132-140)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>G. Chicoine "summary of summaries" (see attachment)
>>>>>>In general, I identified the following POTENTIAL areas of reform.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Procedural Issues
>>>>>>(1) Make the process of electronic versus paper filing of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>complaint
>
>
>>and
>>
>>
>>>>>>exhibits more clear.
>>>>>>(2) Improve searchability of decisions
>>>>>>(3) Difficulty finding Registrar's rules that applied at the time
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>>>>Registrant registered the domain name
>>>>>>(4) Improve accuracy, availability and searchability of Whois
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>information
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>(5) Improve the effectuation of a transfer/cancellation order
>>>>>>(6) Revisit who should select provider
>>>>>>(7) Amendment of complaints under certain limited circumstances
>>>>>>(8) Amendment of responses under certain limited circumstances
>>>>>>(9) Transfer of case to another Provider under certain limited
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>circumstances
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>(10) Uniformity of supplemental rules
>>>>>>(11) Public accessibility of complaints and answers with certain
>>>>>>limitations/exceptions
>>>>>>(12) Central availability of UDRP decisions
>>>>>>(13) No refiling of UDRP involving same domain name and same
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>registrant
>>
>>
>>>>>>except under certain limited circumstances.
>>>>>>(14) Ability to withdraw complaint, but under certain
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>circumstances
>
>
>>and
>>
>>
>>>>with
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>certain consequences (with prejudice, fine)
>>>>>>(15) instituting some sort of penalty for a finding of reverse
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>domain
>>
>>
>>>>name
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>hijacking
>>>>>>(16) impose quality control measures with respect to provider and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>panelists
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>(17) allow for partial refund of provider fee depending if and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>when
>
>
>>a
>>
>>
>>>>case
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>settles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Substantive Issues
>>>>>>(1) Interpretation of "identical or confusingly similar to"
>>>>>>(2) Whether to include some affirmative defenses expressly in the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>policy
>>
>>
>>>>>>(3) Mixed view on precedential value of decisions
>>>>>>(4) Mixed view on ability to appeal (if so, some recommendations
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>included
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>same provider, but different panelists; different provider;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>appealing
>>
>>
>>>>party
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>pays for appeal, but costs for appellant if
>>>>>>successful; level of deference with respect to findings of fact
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>"abuse
>>
>>
>>>>of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>discretion and with respect to law" or "de novo")
>>>>>>(5) changing "registration and use" to "registration or use"
>>>>>>(6) Allow pending trademark applications as a basis for
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>establishing
>
>
>>>>rights
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>in a mark provided use has occurred
>>>>>>(7) no expansion of scope of disputes handled under UDRP except as
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>set
>>
>>
>>>>forth
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>above
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>H. Third party studies/papers. Caroline could not find a link
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>for
>
>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>>Rose
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Communications, S.L. paper so it is attached.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(1) ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy" - Causes and
>>>>>>(Partial) Cures, Prof. A. Michael Froomkin -
>>>>>>http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/udrp.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(2) Max Plank Institute Study -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>http://www.intellecprop.mpg.de/Online-Publikationen/2002/UDRP-study-final-02
>
>
>>>>>>..pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(3) Rough Justice, Prof. Milton Mueller -
>>>>>>http://www.acm.org/usacm/IG/roughjustice.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(4) UDRP-A Success Story? A Rebuttal to the Analysis and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>Conclusions
>
>
>>>>>>of Professor Milton Mueller in Rough Justice, N. Branthover (INTA)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>-
>
>
>>>>>>http://www.inta.org/downloads/tap_udrp_1paper2002.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(5) Divergence in the UDRP and the Need for Appellate Review, M.
>>>>>>Scott Donahey - http://www.udrplaw.net/DonaheyPaper.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(6) Designing Non-National Systems: The Case of the Uniform Domain
>>>>>>Name Dispute Resolution Policy, L. Helfer and G. Dinwoodie -
>>>>>>http://www.kentlaw.edu/depts/ipp/intl-courts/docs/dh.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(7) Fair.com, Prof. Michael Geist -
>>>>>>http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~geist/geistudrp.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(8) Fundamentally Fair.com? An Update on Bias Allegations and the
>>>>>>ICANN UDRP, Prof. Michael Geist -
>>>>>>http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~geist/fairupdate.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(9) The UDRP by All Accounts Works Effectively - Rebuttal to
>>>>>>Analysis and Conclusions of Professor Michael Geist in "Fair.com?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>and
>>
>>
>>>>>>"Fundamentally Fair.com?", INTA Internet Committee -
>>>>>>http://www.inta.org/downloads/tap_udrp_2paper2002.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(10) A Response to INTA's Rebuttal of Fair.com (Prof. Michael
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>Geist)
>
>
>>>>>>- http://aix1.uottawa.ca/~geist/geistintaresp.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(11) Katsh Memo addressed to the Task Force at
>>>>>>http://www.disputes.org/udrp/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(12) Patrick L. Jones article at
>>>>>>http://www.udrplaw.net/UDRPReview1.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Useful web site at
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.udrplaw.net/UDRPReview.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Caroline G. Chicoine - cchicoine@thompsoncoburn.com (IPC)
>>>>>>Sarah Deutsch - sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com (Business)
>>>>>>Neil Duncan Dundas - ndundas@africaip.com (ccTLD)
>>>>>>J. Scott Evans - jse@adamspat.com (Chair)
>>>>>>Antonio Harris - harris@cabase.org.ar (ISP)
>>>>>>Michael Froomkin - froomkin@law.miami.edu (NCDNH)
>>>>>>Michael Palage - michael@palage.com (Registrar)
>>>>>>Philip Sheppard -philip.sheppard@aim.be (Complainant)
>>>>>>M. Scott Donahey - msd@tzmm.com (CPR Panelist)
>>>>>>Ethan Katsh - katsh@legal.umass.edu (eResolution Panelist)
>>>>>>James A. Carmody - carmody@lawyer.com (NAF Panelist)
>>>>>>Tim Cole - tcole@arb-forum.com (NAF Provider)
>>>>>>John Berryhill - jberryhill@ddhs.com (Respondent)
>>>>>>Maxim Waldbaum - mwaldbaum@salans.com (WIPO Panelist)
>>>>>>Erik Wilbers - erik.wilbers@wipo.int (WIPO Provider)
>>>>>>Dan Steinberg - synthesis@videotron.ca (GA Member)
>>>>>>Joon Hyung Hong - joonh@chollian.net (Independent ADR expert)
>>>>>>Graeme Dinwoodie - gdinwood@kentlaw.edu (Independent academic
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>expert)
>>
>>
>>>>>>Ramesh Kumar Nadarajah - ramesh@mimos.my (Independent ADR expert)
>>>>>>Erick Iriarte - faia@amauta.rcp.net.pe (ccTLD)
>>>>>>Chirstopher To - christopher@hkiac.org (ADNDRC Provider)
>>>>>>Dr. Xue Hong - rainbow@cnnic.net.cn (ADNDRC Panelist)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>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.<--
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>--
>>>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.<--
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>--
> 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.<--
>
>
>
>
>
--
Dan Steinberg
SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|