ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Comments on comments on my comments

  • To: <comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Comments on comments on my comments
  • From: "Richard Hill" <rhill@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 10:01:15 +0100

Since some people have been kind enough to comment on my comments, I wish to
clarify some points.  My comments on which people have commented are at:


I stated: " ... if a registrant loses a UDRP case, there is a prima facie
finding of cybersquatting against an IGO name."  I did not mean to imply
that the finding in the UDRP case has any standing in a national court, nor
that it would have any standing in a subsequent arbitration proceeding.
What I meant was that the UDRP panel had made a determination based on the
UDRP.  While that determination does not have any effect on what any
national court or arbitration panel might subsequently decide, it still
seems to be to be a "prima facie" finding, in the ordinary meaning of the
term, that is, "at first sight".

I used the term "arbitration court".  That term refers to organizations that
constitute arbitration panels and that administer arbitrations, such as the
London Court of International Arbitration, the ICC International Court of
Arbitration, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, or, in this context,
whatever organization might administer the arbitrations in question.
Commonly used terms for a specific set of arbitrators that conduct a
specific arbitration are "arbitration panel" or "arbitral tribunal".


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy