RE: [nc-udrp] URGENT PLEAE REVIEW!! - Resurrection of the UDRP Evaluation Task Force

["Cole, Tim" <tcole@arb-forum.com>]

Scott-

I responded several weeks ago (copy below).  I'm sorry if you did not
receive it.  I do intend to continue on the Task Force.

Timothy S. Cole
Director, Internet Dispute Solutions
National Arbitration Forum
651.604.6725
800.474.2371
tcole@arb-forum.com
www.arbitration-forum.com

-----Original Message-----
From: 	Cole, Tim  
Sent:	Monday, October 14, 2002 8:36 AM
To:	'jse@adamspat.com'
Subject:	RE: [nc-udrp] Panelist Quality Control

Scott-
I have been on vacation and did not receive this in time to respond by your
deadline, but I intend to remain on the Task Force.
Thanks,

Timothy S. Cole
Director, Internet Dispute Solutions
National Arbitration Forum
651.604.6725
800.474.2371
tcole@arb-forum.com
www.arbitration-forum.com

-----Original Message-----
From:	jse@adamspat.com [mailto:jse@adamspat.com] 
Sent:	Tuesday, October 08, 2002 2:42 PM
To:	Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law; John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.
Cc:	nc-udrp@dnso.org
Subject:	Re: [nc-udrp] Panelist Quality Control
Importance:	High

Dear All:
I believe that the criterion for arbitrators is set by each individual
provider.
With regard to this inactive list, I have been appointed as the Chair of
this Task Force as many of you are aware.  I have spent the last several
weeks reviewing the numerous (over 500) emails in my UDRP mail box.  The
first task is to determine who of the original Task Force members is still
willing to participate in this process.  The next task will be to look at
the Terms of Reference document and compare that to the survey results.
Please understand that the Survey is NOT intended to control the outcome of
our recommendations in the areas identified in the terms of reference.
So, if the recipient's of this message will respond by no later than Oct. 12
and let us know who is willing to move forward with this Task Force.  It is
my hope to have an interim report/progress report ready by the NC meeting in
November 2002.  I look forward to hearing from each of you and I am hopeful
that you all will participate.  I believe the Task Force is populated with
many differing views and many good minds.  Together I feel confident that we
can provide the NC and, ultimately, the Board with a solid recommendation on
the UDRP.
I look forward to hearing from each of you very soon.
Kind regards.
J. Scott Evans
ADAMS, SCHWARTZ & EVANS, P.A.
jse@adamspat.com
704-375-9249
----- Original Message -----
From:	"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
To:	"John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <john@johnberryhill.com>
Cc:	<nc-udrp@dnso.org>
Sent:	Tuesday, October 08, 2002 1:37 PM
Subject:	Re: [nc-udrp] Panelist Quality Control


> I can tell you that whatever the criteria are, WIPO appears to believe I
> do not meet them, as they rejected my application....
>
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:
>
> >
> > Nobody seems to know the answers to the questions I had asked earlier
about
> > what are the criteria for accrediting panelists, or what training
materials
> > are provided to panelists, which is somewhat odd considering that UDRP
> > panelists are on this busy task force.  The following case is an
interesting
> > study in what happens when panelists do not actually read the policies
under
> > which they are making decisions.
> >
> > http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/dbiz2002-00270.html
> >
> > This is a .biz STOP decision.  The .biz STOP policy requires the domain
name
> > to be identical to the complainant's mark (the "confusingly similar"
language
> > was not included in .biz STOP).
> >
> > The domain name is "newzealand.biz", and concerning the trademark claim,
the
> > panelist unequivocally finds:
> >
> > "To summarize its determination in this proceeding, the Panel rejects
> > Complainant's claim to trademark and service mark rights in 'NEW
ZEALAND'."
> >
> > And then the panelist orders transfer of the domain name.
> >
> > The reason for the transfer was the panelist's understanding of the
rules for
> > determining whether further challenges of multiple claimants would be
> > permitted after a transfer has been ordered.  That rule, which is based
on
> > whether the complainant has legitimate rights of any kind, was used by
this
> > panelist to write the trademark requirement completely out of the
policy.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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 very hot here.<--
>
>