RE: [nc-udrp] Status

["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

I believe you are absolutely correct as to the endurance of the UDRP.  
What is less clear to me is the mechanism by which the UDRP would be
modified in the event of this transformation.  

That said, some discussion on this list of which are the problems we ought
to try to solve might be valuable.  I'd encourage people to separate their
comments according to the two documents (the "policy" and the "rules"). My
own belief is that, despite my wishes to the contrary, changes to the
substance of the policy are unlikely to have much consensus, although some
attempts to clarify existing points on which panels have disagreed *might*
lead to progress (the difficulty is that the disagreements probably
reflect a lack of consensus, making progress difficult).

On the other hand, I think there are a fair number of procedural flaws in
the much more hastily written procedural 'rules' that would generally be
agreed to be problems, even if there is not necessarily as an initial
matter agreement on the best solution.  I think therefore this is most
likely to be a productive area for discussion.  I'd be happy to send a
paper or e-copy of my essay on this topic to anyone interested, which is
forthcoming in the brooklyn law review.



On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> I agree it is tough to concentrate on this issue.  But even if "ICANN is up
> for grabs", I do not believe the UDRP is.  It raises an interesting
> question...Does the UDRP depend on the well-being or existence of ICANN? 
> 
> I do not believe it is.  Even if there were no ICANN, which I am not in any
> way advocating, because I believe that ICANN is needed (for reasons beyond
> the scope of this list), the contracts would still exist (albeit with a
> different contracting officer - the DOC), and registrants would still be
> subject to the UDRP.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> [mailto:froomkin@law.miami.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 11:44 AM
> To: Neuman, Jeff
> Cc: 'nc-udrp@dnso.org'
> Subject: Re: [nc-udrp] Status
> 
> 
> It's hard to focus on this when the very nature of ICANN is up for
> grabs....
> 
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> 
> > Does anyone know what the status of the committee is at this point?  Is
> > there something we are supposed to be doing?  I am not asking for more
> work,
> > but I am not sure where we stand right now?
> > 
> > Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> > Director, Policy and Intellectual Property
> > NeuLevel, Inc. 
> > Loudoun Tech Center
> > e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@NeuLevel.biz
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--