Re: Dispute resolution - followup

[Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com>]

On Sat, 21 Dec 1996, Thom Stark wrote:

> made a REQUIREMENT for obtaining SLD registration, anyone contending a
> name would HAVE to agree to arbitration if they wished to use the name
> themselves.
> 
> If they did NOT wish to use the name themselves, why would they bother
> to contest it?

1. I register example.stuff

2. Example Widgets Inc. goes to a US court and gets a decision
   against me and forces the registry in the USA to remove example.stuff.

3a. Example Widgets Inc. registers example.stuff and agrees to
    binding arbitration.

4a. I take them to arbitration and get my domain name back.

5a. Example Widgets Inc. goes back to court but this time the
    court will not hear the case because there is a signed
    contract for binding arbitration.

Or perhaps....

3b. Example Widgets Inc. doesn't really want the name so I
    reapply and register it again perhaps using a registrar
    outside the USA.

It would appear that binding arbitration could be very useful even in the
situation where a domain name challenger has not signed any binding
arbitration contract because unless they register the domain and submit
themselves to binding arbitration they must run from one country to the
next chasing down court injunctions.

> Instead of simply complaining, I've chosen to suggest an alternative
> which, in my opinion, is fair, easily-implemented, more palatable than a
> 60-day wait period and is designed to eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic
> overhead, rather than increasing it.

Seems to be an option well worth considering.

Michael Dillon                   -               Internet & ISP Consulting
Memra Software Inc.              -                  Fax: +1-604-546-3049
http://www.memra.com             -               E-mail: michael@memra.com