___________________________________________________________________________
____
This message is intended for the individual or entity named above. If you
are not the intended
recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to
others; also please
notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from
your system. Thank you.
___________________________________________________________________________
____
Patrick, obviously we need to do a better job in writing press releases,
since there was obviously some confusion. Let me try to clarify, at the
risk of simply introducing more confusion. When the Board used the word
"uniform," it meant uniform across registrars, not uniform across issues or
types of disputes. Thus, for some situations, like abusive registrations,
something like mandatory arbitration might be appropriate, while for
others, like where reasonable people could differ, some other approach may
be more appropriate. This could range, in theory, from do nothing to some
form of mandatory ADR; the Board did not intend to signal any particular
preference, and to the extent that the press release was inartfully
drafted, I apologize for the confusion.
(Embedded
image moved Patrick Greenwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
to file: 06/23/99 12:47 PM
pic13198.pcx)
Extension:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(bcc: Joe Sims/JonesDay)
Subject: Re: Re: Fwd: [IFWP] Press Communiqu� (fwd)
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Joe Sims wrote:
> First, contrary to the assertion in your posting, the Board did not
> endorse a "expand-WIPO-arbitration strategy" in its Berlin resolution.
> WIPO recommended
> arbitration only for disputes involving abusive registrations. What the
> Board resolution endorsed
> was the "principle that a uniform dispute resolution poicy should be
> adopted for Registrars in the
> .com, .net, and .org Top-Level Domains (TLDs)." Endorsing a uniform **
> dispute resolution**
> policy among registrars doesn't say anything about whether and in what
> circumstances the policy
> should include **arbitration**. It is entirely possible that any policy
> adopted would use arbitration
> only for disputes involving abusive registrations, with other types of
> disputes being handled by the registrar doing nothing until the registrar
> receives court instructions.
Hi Joe,
I believe Michael was referring to the discrepency between what the board
resolutions state and what ICANNs own press release states.
Following is an excerpt from:
http://www.icann.org/berlin/berlin-press-rel.htm
"The Initial Board noted that a uniform dispute settlement mechanism was a
necessary element of a competitive registrar system. The Initial Board
noted that the scope of this policy should be wider than the cases of
abusive registration with which the WIPO report deals, and ultimately
cover all commercial dispute issues linked to Domain Name registrations."
> Third, I do not believe that you are correct in stating that the Board
> endorsed arbitration for "cases
> where reasonable people can disagree."
Well, given the above, it would seem you are mistaken.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
\/\
Patrick Greenwell Telocity
http://www.telocity.com
(408) 863-6617 v (tinc) (408) 777-1451 f
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
/\/
pic13198.pcx
