Re: Dispute resolution

[John Leslie <john@jlc.net>]

Thom Stark wrote:
> 
> ... a better solution would be to require all SLD registrants to agree
> to enter into legally-binding arbitration with any disputant of their
> right to use of the SLD, with the costs of arbitration being assigned
> by the arbiter, based on his/her judgement of the relative merits of
> the two parties' claims.

   Absolutely!

   As a matter of fact, for gTLDs, arbitration should be the rule for
all disputes that cannot be quickly settled between the disputants.

   "Leave it to the courts to decide" doesn't work for most international
disputes because there are no international courts with jurisdiction.
The current language in the draft (which allows the registrant to choose
the country and the challenger to choose the court) serves neither side
well. Arbitration would serve both sides better, and is indisputably
appropriate for inter-national disputes.

   The draft recognizes that gTLDs are inter-national by their nature,
and that arbitration should be preferred to litigation. Why can't we
be consistent here?

   (Yes, I know we can't prevent someone who never agreed to arbitration
from filing suit for trademark infringement in any court with jurisdiction
over assets of the registrant; but we needn't make his/her job easier,
and hopefully we can establish a precedent of quickly dismissing suits by
persons who want to take SLDs for their own use.)

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>