Re: [DNS]

Re: [DNS]

From: John Davidson <john.davidson§>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 22:24:32 -0500

I am not quite as cynical as you. The limited literature on the UDRP's
progress widely recognizes as a "bad decision" and I doubt
that it, and its faulty reasoning, will be followed again. Unlike the
courts, future panellists under the UDRP are not required to follow previous
decisions, although usually it is desirable for them to do so. Therefore, I
very much doubt will open the floodgates to the assignment of domains to government bodies in that area.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Robb" <doug&#167;>
To: <dns&#167;>
Cc: <stewartw&#167;>
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 9:16 PM
Subject: RE: [DNS]

> Extract from the article:
> >According to Marino Porzio, the Chilean arbitrator who
> >issued the ruling for the WIPO, surfers looking for
> >information about Barcelona "would normally expect to
> >reach  some official body or representative of the city of
> > Barcelona itself" at "Hence []
> >is definitely taking advantage" of the "confusion of the
> >public" and was therefore guilty of bad faith. Further
> evidence, according to the panelist, was the council's
> >inquiry about investing in, as it was
> >"evident" that the domain owner planned to obtain payment
> >from the council by providing the council with a business
> >plan.
> This is the problem with these sorts of panels - ad hoc,
> arbitary and writing the rules as they go along. Using the
> "normally you would expect" argument means you can justify
> any "official body" taking over various generic domains.
> In any case this is simply not true. Anyone who's been on
> the net more that 5 minutes would know that for example,
> may or may not be something about perth western
> australia.
> Then its a matter of which perth .... and finding "some
> official body" is probably the last thing you'd expect.
> (because it doesn't happen - try a few) Ditto for all
> geographic names. There is simply no substance in Porzio's
> statement if you look at the net as it stands today. It may
> be how it could have been or how he'd like it to be but its
> certainly not how it is.
> >The City Council's legal representation,
> >PricewaterhouseCoopers, says that the WIPO will use this
> >ruling as the foundation for future decisions. Francis
> >Gurry, the assistant director general of WIPO, rejected
> >that claim.
> F Gurry is wrong here. Of course they will use this as a
> precident! They must .... how can they not? Every case from
> now on will cite this example and want to get the same
> decision just as brisbane council is hoping to do.
> >Gurry said he could not comment on individual decisions,
> >but the performance of the arbitrators is constantly under
> >review. "The procedure is only designed to deal with
> >open-and-shut cases," Gurry said. "That's what they should
> >be, but I can't say they are."
> He is correct here .. that particular decision is one that
> should not have been made under their own mandate - and
> one arbitrator from Chile is able to wreak this sort of
> decision and the associated costs to the world at large.
> > said it would appeal to the U.S. courts,
> >where the company believes it stands a better chance of
> >defending its property rights than in Geneva.
> I hope so.
> regards doug
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Doug Robb
> Clarity Software Pty Ltd
> GPO Box 763                   Phone: 0403 02 2527
> Nedlands 6909                 Fax:   (618) 93867564
> Australia                     email: doug&#167;
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> --
> This article is not to be reproduced or quoted beyond this forum without
> express permission of the author. 360 subscribers.
> Archived at (user: dns, pass: dns)
> Email "unsubscribe" to dns-request&#167; to be removed.
Received on Wed Feb 07 2001 - 11:20:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:04 UTC