At 07:43 PM 2/10/99 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Kent Crispin wrote:
>
>> Of *course* the WIPO draft "contemplates"
>> things beyond current law -- that's the whole point. The question is
>> whether the draft specifies things that can't be implemented because
>> they would *contradict* current law. For example, contractually
>> mandated ADRs are completely consistent with current law, but they
>> are also beyond the current law.
>>
>
>Here is what the public interest advocate on the WIPO panel of experts has to
>say on this subject. He is, by the way, unlike Crispin, a law professor:
>
>"As WIPO itself admits, �It is recognized that ... questions may be raised in
>certain jurisdictions regarding the validity and enforceability of such a
>mandatory procedure, particularly in light of consumer protection laws, due
>process considerations and the fact that it purports to create rights for a
>party who is not privy to the domain name registration agreement.� RFC 3,
>para.
>144. In fact, the proposed agreement is completely one-sided, fundamentally
>unfair to consumers, and likely to undermine values of free expression.
>Recent
>case law demonstrates that there is a good chance that a US court would find
>such an arbitration agreement contained in an adhesion contract to be
>unconscionable when applied to a consumer and refuse to enforce it. I would
>certainly urge it to do so."
>
___________________________________________________
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com
___________________________________________________
KISS ... gotta love it!
