Re: [nc-udrp] Call for Votes - Rule 4(k)

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

Yes, although I don't object to putting the notificiation requirement on
the appealling party.

Incidentally I don't seem not have gotten a copy of Mr. Donahey's message
you quote below, and it's not in the archive.

Did you quote it in full?  It's hard to believe that we have here yet
another so detailed and thoughtful response, every bit as substantive and
on-the-record as the response to my list of proposals at 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/msg00551.html


On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> 
> From: "M. Scott Donahey" <sdonahey@tzllp.com>
> 
> 
> > No.
> 
> Perhaps since I gave a rationale for the change to 4(k), based on the
> reaction of two judges of the Fourth Circuit, someone might post perhaps a
> brief rationale the other way.
> 
> As Mr. Carmody points out, expecting the registrars to know appellate
> deadlines is unreasonable, and some evidence of an actual appeal in progress
> should be supplied.
> 
> One might assume the intent that the UDRP be subordinate to determinations
> under national legal systems would imply that national legal systems be
> allowed to run their course, and that the status quo be maintained (pace any
> interim orders) during that time.  Is there something missing from that line
> of reasoning?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
		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 warm here.<--