Re: [ICANN-EU] The real challenge for all of us as candidates

[Marc Schneiders <marc@venster.nl>]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2000, Andreas Fügner wrote:

[Roberto Gaetano argued the need of some sort of UDRP, *mandatory*]
> >But the next step is that clear policy has *really* to be established, and
> >the rulings have *really* to be conformant to the established policy. We
> >cannot accept that a case will have different winners/losers depending on
> >the personal opinions and interpretations of tha arbitrator.
> 
> Every policy, every law leaves room for interpretation. And as long as
> people make mistakes (incl. judges, juries or arbitrators) the way for
> advancement is to have different courts with different decisions to
> learn from. Of course that requires the chance to appeal. All this is
> basic for a functioning system of policy or law. Your words sound like
> dictatorship to me. Monopolistic power should never be placed in hands
> with these opinions.

Well you have argued time and again that UDRP is fair, because it leaves
room for going to court afterwards (or even while UDRP is running
on/against your domain).

The problem with the present workings of UDRP is that it is *very*
inconsistent. The courts of the most corrupt country in the worst movie
look really consistent when compared to WIPO. 

Appeals are maybe necessary, even under UDRP. But if the first rulings are
inconsistent most of the time, one might as well do the appeal immediately
and skip the first stage.

In short: UDRP should become consistent, even, fair. And WIPO has to
remember it has a subsidiary rule under a procedure that 'belongs' to
ICANN. So WIPO cannot make the rules or stretch them to match the
interests of its own supporters.

Of course, if ICANN took itself seriously, it had told WIPO this about 6
months back, if not earlier. And taken action 2 months later by taking 
WIPO of(f) the list of UDRP-arbitration centers.

-- 
Marc Schneiders ------- Venster - http://www.venster.nl 
 marc@venster.nl - marc@bijt.net - marc@schneiders.org