Dispute resolution

[thomst@netcom.com (Thom Stark)]

> 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?

To which Michael Dillon responded:

> 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.

I have to admit that your chain of logic takes the idea further than I
had thought it through.  It stands up, too, which comes as a pleasant
surprise..especially since it answers an objection Scott Bradner raised
in a private email in a considerably more elegant way than I was able 
to manage.

> > 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.

Thanks.

All I'm trying to do is to suggest a viable alternative to the 60-day
wait period which so many posts on this list denigrate.  I'm extremely
open to other solutions, especially those that do not invite nations to
assert the right to exert control over the Internet..an eventuality
which may be unavoidable in the long run, but which I regard as 
something that we, as a community, should attempt to delay as long as 
possible.

Regards,

Thom Stark

Email:  thomst@netcom.com              URL:  http://www.dnai.com/~thomst
             finger thomst@netcom.com for my PGP Public Key

(510) 526-9600 voice       STARK  REALITIES           fax (510) 526-9063
POB 457                     El Cerrito, CA                ZIP 94530-0457