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

[Ethan Katsh <katsh@legal.umass.edu>]

At 05:28 PM 2/28/2003 -0500, Maxim Waldbaum wrote:

>yes with all the onus of notice on the appellant. mac

         I would go along with this - Ethan




> >>> "John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <john@johnberryhill.com> 02/28/03 17:03 
> PM >>>
>
>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?
>
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________
>
>The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
>entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
>privileged material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination
>or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
>information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient
>is prohibited.  If you received this transmission in error, please
>contact the sender by reply e-mail or by telephone (212-632-5500)
>and delete and destroy all copies of the material, including all
>copies stored in the recipient's computer, printed or saved to disk.