DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [nc-udrp] Call for Votes - Rule 4(k)

> Did you quote it in full?

Yes, and it should have appeared on the list.

Actually, if you read Mr. Donahey's various papers, he has proposed an
internal UDRP appeal process which would resolve divergence on
panelist-dependent issues.  I wouldn't pretend to speak for him, but he may
not have had time to explain in more detail that it may be his preference to
do something along those lines, and to avoid taking UDRP disputes into
national courts, which would probably diverge further.  He may have other
reasons, and not much time to discuss them.  At least a "no" vote signifies
some difference of opinion, whether or not we know what the opinion might
itself be.

There is a way of thinking that rules do not need to have reasons for them.
As with the difference in payment rules for complainants and respondents, the
answer seems to be "the rule says so", and there needn't be any reason for
the rule to be any different.  I wouldn't think too many lawyers adopt that
approach to rules, but I'm not one to judge.

But rather than doing this scattershot, I will bundle some of the ideas
floated here earlier and we can at least take some straw votes to identify
areas, if any, where improvements might make sense.

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