>Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 09:08 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cliff Dilloway) >Subject: ICANN Dispute Resolution "Arbitration" >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows NT 4.0 build 1381 (Service Pack 5) > >The ICANN Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy refer to >an "administrative procedure" and a "administrative panel" and the process >is not referred to as arbitration. > >The non-description of the process as Arbitration appears to be likely to >cause difficulty when applying for a stay of legal proceedings under >Section 9 of the English Arbitration Act 1996. As the rules do not >describe the ICANN process as arbitration there can be some doubt as to >whether there is an "arbitration agreement" within the meaning of the >English Arbitration Act 1996 and such an "arbitration agreement" is >essential for a stay of the legal proceedings to be obtained > >This is urgent please on account of pending legal proceedings. If you can >quote authorities I would be grateful.TVMIA. > > > > >Cliff Dilloway [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For Internet Self Regulation see: www.endispute.co.uk\isr\israem.htm > > > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dnso.com It's about travel on expense accounts to places with good beer. - BKR
