Re: [nc-udrp] Not Forum Rules, but the UDRP
Respondents should have longer to pay, since the complainant chooses the
timing of the proceeding and has as long as he wishes to amass the funds.
The current rule actually has the equities backwards.
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:
> From: "Cole, Tim" <email@example.com>
> > It would seem that the drafters
> > of the UDRP, who included a window of time for receipt of an initial fee
> > the Complaint, would have included one for the Response if that had been
> > their intention.
> It would seem, then, that Complainants and Respondents are treated
> differently concerning the payment of fees. If there is a rationale for
> providing Complainants a ten day period for fee payment after filing, and
> providing Respondents no such period, I need some help understanding why.
> > The Forum did not draft these Rules, but is charged with the fair
> > administration of proceedings under them.
> This Task Force, however, is charged with taking a look at the Rules and how
> they are administered, hence my question is directed to Mr. Cole the UDRP
> Review TF member, not Mr. Cole the NAF official. The way that the Forum
> administers this rule differs substantially from the way that WIPO
> administers this rule. One can only conclude that either the NAF or WIPO is
> wrong, because they can't both be right if there is only one "fair" way to
> interpret the payment rules. If WIPO is habitually getting this wrong, then
> that is worth knowing.
> You have hit the nail directly on the head by identifying this disparate
> treatment as a defect of the UDRP, not the Forum Rules. Now, if only we can
> figure out whether there is a body somewhere that might be interested in
> knowing whether the rules might need a tweak.... Hmmm..... let me see.....
> there must be someone.
> It is also worth knowing if anyone on the TF can think of a reason why the
> parties should be treated differently concerning fee payments. I'm willing
> to believe there might be a reason. But in the absence of a reason, then it
> is simply unequal treatment with no justification. Isn't that the kind of
> issue we should be looking at here?
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 warm here.<--