[IFWP] Re: Model rules for UDRP
Diane and all, DIane, Ken Stubbs knows that he deliberately and with malice, mislead folks. He should not have done that. However he has a long history of doing so. Carl O. pointed out clearly just how far folks like Ken Stubbs is willing to go. So I think your now lashing Ellen here for her wise decision is besides the actual point. Attempting to defend the actions of another by passing them to someone else is an old and bad political maneuver that most of us are quite familiar with. Sorry Diane, I respect your opinion in most cases, but this isn't one of them. Diane Cabell wrote: > - Original Message - > From: Ellen Rony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Diane Cabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Ken Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, September 13, 1999 10:59 PM > Subject: Re: Model rules for UDRP > > > >It seemed to me a gesture of respect and honor to you > > >and your excellent site. > > > > Yes, of course. That's a compelling reason to post everything that I > am sent. > > > > Please, if you have questions about my website management decisions, > > wouldn't a private query be more appropriate than personal assumptions > and > > a public, and frankly undeserved, lashing. > > Perhaps, Ellen, if you hadn't given Mr. Stubbs such a public and > underserved lashing then this would have been a more quiet weekend for > us all. It appeared to me that you vented all your frustration with > ICANN at him and, as far as I can tell, without cause. You, also, could > have simply have declined privately. I think many of us, myself > especially, acted in haste and without taking steps that we could have. > Stubbs is not perfect, I am not perfect. > > I will continue, however, to post unofficial documents, labeled as such, > if they are highly relevant to domain name issues, and from a source > known to me. If you don't want to do that, that's cool. > > Just because material appears on my website, that doesn't mean I support > it, any more than it means that I approve of the court opinions that > appear there. Much of it is posted because there is no other source for > it at the time and a lot of my colleagues are interested in it. > > Diane Cabell > http://www.mama-tech.com > Fausett, Gaeta & Lund > Boston Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
[IFWP] Re: Model rules for UDRP
Carl and all, I am also in complete agreement with Carl on his comments here to these "Rules for UDRP". But as I said in an earlier post on this subject, I will have additional comments/suggestions in a later post. Good read Carl! Carl Oppedahl wrote: > At 10:57 PM 9/9/99 , Diane Cabell wrote: > > >I've put them up at http://www.mama-tech.com/udrp.html > > > >Ken Stubbs wrote: > > > >> hope these get thru your filters intact diane... > >> they are all in a word format > > The proposed policy is absolutely terrible for the innocent domain name > owner who is the subject of an attempted reverse domain name hijacking. > > First, it allows WIPO to hide from its decisions (as NSI does) by keeping > them secret. "(b) Except if the Panel determines otherwise, the Provider > shall publish the decision and the date of its implementation on a publicly > accessible website." All decisions by WIPO should be public, so that > people can see for themselves if WIPO is getting the right answer when it > decides a dispute. > > Second, it burdens the domain name owner with the problem of raising the > money to file a lawsuit in a mere *ten days*. The cost to file a lawsuit > of this type is typically $10K for lead counsel and another $5K for local > counsel, totaling $15K. This is far worse than NSI's present policy, which > at least gave the domain name owner 37 days in which to raise the money to > file the lawsuit. It is inequitable in the extreme to force the domain > name owner (who may not have counsel already and who may well not have an > extra fifteen thousand dollars cash on hand) to raise fifteen thousand > dollars, interview counsel, select counsel, pay them a ten-thousand dollar > advance, find local counsel, pay them a five-thousand-dollar advance, draft > court papers, and file them, all in less than ten days. The domain name > owner should be permitted at least the 37 days that NSI presently provides. > > Third, it repeats the terrible inequity presently imposed by NSI on domain > name owners, namely that it forces the domain name owner to spend perhaps > $100K to bring a DJ action to completion. Yet for any dispute *other* than > a domain name dispute (e.g. a dispute relating to the *text* of a web page > rather than the domain name) the burden of spending money to sue would be > on the challenger, as it is in all other trademark disputes. > > More importantly, in a normal court action by a challenger (such a > challenge to the text of a web page) the challenger risks Rule 11 sanctions > if it later turns out the lawsuit lacked merit. This discourages the > challenger with a meritless claim from asserting it. In contrast, this > proposed policy eliminates all or nearly all risks to the challenger and > permits it to assert a meritless claim without taking any risk. This puts > out the "welcome mat" for challengers who have meritless claims and who > wish to engage in reverse domain name hijacking. > > I speak from experience on this. I have studied many, many real-life > situations where the challenger has gone to NSI rather than to court for > the simple reason that the challenge would have been laughed out of court > but will be accepted by NSI. > > The WIPO panel is essentially proposing to grant preliminary injunctive > relief, just as a normal court would. But please remind yourself what you > learned in your first year of law school, which is that no normal court > grants preliminary injunctive relief except in a document which says the > relief is conditional on the posting of a bond, to protect the target in > the event that it is later determined that the relief should not have been > granted. You want preliminary relief to shut down a factory? Then you > should post bond equal to the profits the factory owner will lose during > the time it is shut down. > > In the case of this proposed policy, the challenger should be required to > post a bond in an amount equal to the anticipated cost to the domain name > owner of filing and litigating a DJ action. Probably $100K is appropriate. > Then, if the domain name owner files a DJ action and wins, the bond is > paid over to the domain name owner. Otherwise the bond is refunded to the > challenger. Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
[IFWP] Re: Model rules for UDRP
Diane and all, Thank you Diane. I shall pass this on to our legal staff for further review. I can see some immediate problems on just a first read that I will comment on in a later post. Diane Cabell wrote: > I've put them up at http://www.mama-tech.com/udrp.html > > Ken Stubbs wrote: > > > hope these get thru your filters intact diane... > > they are all in a word format > > > > ken stubbs > > - Original Message - > > From: Diane Cabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, September 09, 1999 10:14 PM > > Subject: Re: Model rules for UDRP > > > > > I'd like to see the Model to know whether the recommended changes have > > been > > > incorporated. Will someone send me a copy? > > > > > Diane Cabell > http://www.mama-tech.com > Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP > Boston, MA Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
