UDRP v DRS

Found this interesting PDF comparing the UDRP to the DRS:

http://www.csccorporatedomains.com/downloads/NETS01.udrp.pdf

Now sure how old it is ........

Also this is interesting from todays news:

http://news.com.com/Big+names+may+not+prevail+in+domain+disputes/2010-1030_3-6160795.html

 

...Emilly Taylors quote was somewhat 'disturbing':

NOMINET SPEAKS
NOMINET'S EMILLY TAYLOR OUTLINES THE KEY
ADVANTAGES OF THE COMPANY'S DRS

"The big thing that differentiates us from other systems is the mediation process that we offer for free, and which leads to a resolution in over a third of cases. As to the nitty-gritty rules side, for trademark holders/claimants there are two key points. First, that we don't require proof of registration and use in bad faith, only registration or use in bad faith. This may seem like a small point, but in practice you can get into all sorts of complicated arguments about use. Second, in terms of blocking registrations, our system doesn't require you to establish a pattern of conduct, just one abuse or one illegal name can formthe basis of a dispute."

...This quote was about the UDRP rather than the DRS - I think we all know what would of happend under the DRS - It's clear to me (and others) that the UDRP is a 'fairer' system than the DRS, but for some reason Emilly Taylor really doesn't like the UDRP - she's showing a bias here maybe? :???:

Regards,

Sneezy.

 

is it her hubby who does the drs system?