Re: [alac] About languages in UDRP

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm sorry, Erick, but if you want that other members of this
committee take your views into account, you'll have to write them
down in English.
-- 
Thomas Roessler  <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/







On 2004-03-07 22:03:38 -0500, Erick Iriarte Ahon wrote:
> From: Erick Iriarte Ahon <faia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, alac@xxxxxxxxx
> Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 22:03:38 -0500
> Subject: Re: [alac] About languages in UDRP
> X-Spam-Level: 
> 
> 
> En efecto este es un tema bastante interesante Vittorio.
> 
> Por un lado tenemos que expresamente se indica que el proceso se llevará en 
> el lenguaje del registro, y por otro lado lo expresado por el "panelista de 
> la OMPI" indicando el "menor costo de administración de justicia" (que no 
> tiene que ver necesariamente con dinero, sino tambien con tiempo, y 
> oportunidad de no utilizar la diferencia lingüistica como herramienta 
> dilatoria).
> 
> Asi tenemos que lo hecho por el "panelista" estaría utilizando la facultad 
> que le concede el parrafo 11 de las Reglas para la aplicación de la UDRP 
> (http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/uniform-rules.htm). Sin embargo y dado que 
> el parrafo indica que el "panelista" pudiera tomar la decisión de que se 
> utilice otro lenguaje distinto al del registro, en la medida que pudiera 
> ser dilatorio para el proceso, no hay un problema en si de procedimiento o 
> falla procesal.
> 
> Hay, de otro lado, dos cosas que mencionar:
> 
> 1. la discrecionalidad que ofrece este parrafo a los "panelistas", y por 
> ende la "ventaja" que buscaran los "demandantes" de buscar panelistas de su 
> misma lengua, burlando el espiritu de la UDRP para trastocarlo en una 
> herramienta de presión.
> 
> 2. El error del panelista de determinar: quién esta capacitado para hablar 
> en ingles o no, de acuerdo a su punto 6A, tercer parrafo, que indica que el 
> demandado que dice: "(...)The English used by the Respondent in his letters 
> demonstrates his ability to understand and communicate in English without 
> difficulty. ". hay un vacio en la UDRP y deberia corregirse.
> 
> 
> se sale de contexto puesto que la "politica de resolución de disputas", no 
> indica que sea "optativo" este tema del lenguaje del proceso, sino que lo 
> indica como una norma "per se", con lo cual estaria incurriendo en una 
> falla procesal, con lo cual la parte afectada pudiera recurrir el proceso 
> por falta de garantias de legitima defensa.
> 
> A la propuesta que hacer Vittorio cabe indicar que el parrafo11 de la 
> reglas indica que el lenguaje sera el del registro o acuerdo de las partes 
> o decisión del panelista, quisas dejarlo en los dos primeros ayudaría.
> 
> Saludos
> 
> Erick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 06:44 a.m. 06/03/2004, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> >http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/04/2152235&mode=nested
> >
> >It is an interesting and important issue, in my opinion.
> >
> >This deals with a dispute between Dassault, one of the biggest French
> >companies, and the Korean registrant of dassault.com (which might as well 
> >be
> >a cybersquatter - this won't be the point of the discussion here).
> >
> >The UDRP says that a dispute has to be conducted in the language of the
> >Registration Agreement (which, in this case, was obviously Korean) unless
> >the Panel decides otherwise.
> >
> >In this case, when the defendant asked that the case be conducted in 
> >Korean,
> >the Panel decided that, since he had already sent messages in English
> >(including the one to raise this point, I think), he knew English and so 
> >the
> >dispute should have been conducted in English to save time and money for
> >Dassault (see 6.A at
> >http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0989.html)
> >
> >I don't have a final opinion on this, but it seems very worrying to me 
> >that,
> >just because you made the effort to respond in English at the beginning of
> >the proceeding (possibly because the complaint you received was in
> >English!), you shall be condemned to use English, rather than your own
> >language, for the rest of the proceeding.
> >
> >Thinking that guarantees for the defendant - such as the ability to use
> >his/her own language - are to be waived because they would be a "waste of
> >time and money" for the complainant goes against any idea of due process
> >that even non-lawyers like me bear in mind.
> >
> >What do you think? If others agree, we might raise the issue within ICANN,
> >and perhaps ask that the rules are changed so that it is not in the Panel's
> >discretion to change the language of the proceeding, but that such change
> >may only happen if all parties agree.
> >--
> >vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
> >http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg...
>