Comment with respect to the Czech Arbitration Court proposition for a fast track UDRP process

[Jean-Sébastien Lascary <jslascary@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I endorse the comments submitted by Mr. George Kirikos on this issue.
 
The CAC?s proposition is indeed an invitation for reverse domain name
hijacking.
 
The proposition will not improve the quality of the dispute resolution
system already in place.
 
I disagree on the following points
a) The decision to terminate the Expedited Decision process and continue
under the regular process (5A(c)) will be determined by a Panel of one
(1) Panelist. This totally undermines the guarantees/safeties provided
by the 3 panelists system.
b) The decision to use, switch to or switch from the ED depends solely
on the Complainiant/Panelist but not the Respondant. In the limited
cases where such a Fast Track/ Regular tandem exist (i.e. Tax Court of
Canada), the decision to use one or the other is alway?s the
Respondant?s (In the case of the Tax Court of Canada, it?s the
Appelant?s, which is in fact the taxpayer?s).
c) Different fees for what is said to be 2 procedure that give the same
end-results is not acceptable (12(b)). If the proposition is accepted,
this may open the door to forum-shopping. I don?t know of any forum that
allows for a ?fast-track?, cheaper, injuction procedure as well as a
regular one (not talking of provisional measures here). Domain
registration has become part of many businesses in today?s world economy
and the CAC?s proposition simply threatens the stability of the whole
system.