Don’t do their job deciding reverse domain name hijacking — UDRP panelists
Panelists don’t always consider RDNH when asked, and both WIPO and NAF don’t seem to care.
On Friday I wrote regarding the UDRP decision for AboutDotMed.com et al. This morning I read the decision for J-brand.com.
In both cases the respondents won. In both cases the respondents asked for reverse domain name hijacking. But in neither case did the panelist make a decision (either way) regarding reverse domain name hijacking.
Yet the World Intellectual Property Organization and National Arbitration Forum allowed the decisions to be published in their incomplete form.
When a respondent asks for reverse domain name hijacking, it is the panelists responsibility to consider it and make a ruling. In fact, a UDRP panelist can make a ruling of RDNH without the respondent even tasking.
If you turn in unfinished work at school, you either get a failing grade or the homework is returned to you to complete. If you turn in an unfinished project at work it will be counted against you. You might even be fired. Yet for some reason, both major UDRP groups let panelists turn in unfinished decisions.
Why are panelists allowed to shirk their duties? Why do the arbitration managers let them turn in unfinished decisions?
