| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Gatwick goings-on
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 4 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
The Register article raises some interesting questions regarding WIPO rulings precedents being set by the decision of Prof. Cornish in the cases of juliebrown.com and celinedion.com. That is to say Prof. Cornish didn't follow the wording of the UDRP to the letter. The case of brucespringsteen.com as arbitrated by Michael Froomkin and Gordon Harris shows what happens in these cases when the UDRP wording is followed exactly - the complainant loses. Wonder what the chances are of that decision setting a WIPO precedent...?
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
There aren't that many WIPO panelists out there who rule more often for respondents than for complainants. (That may have a lot to do with how WIPO screens its panelists to begin with.)
I fail to understand the significance of that statement.
UDRP complaints are not filed against a random sample of domain names. UDRP complaints are filed against a subfractional percent of domain names where at least someone thinks there is a grounds for a dispute. A substantial proportion of those cases are defaults by the domain registrant. In the majority of cases where the respond (a) responds, and (b) selects a three member panel, the respondent prevails (65% of the time by Milton Mueller's reckoning).
I completely fail to understand what the win/loss ratio, apart from any other considerations, says about whether the process is "fair".
Guess what? Most criminal juries find the defendant guilty. Does that mean juries are biased?
Now, the conclusions about panelist selection may be correct here. But that doesn't justify the use of outstandingly stupid logic.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| - Re:Dumbth
by jon
Thursday November 18 2004, @08:54AM
|
|
|
The case was decided in favor of the domain name registrant, for those interested in facts.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
