All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Frontier Compliance: A Communication System Emerging in Cyberspace
Unformatted Document Text:  20 of the respondents are individuals. 22 There may be many reasons why individuals have disadvantage in the UDRP proceedings. In default cases where the respondents did not submit responses, whether the respondent was an individual or a firm did not influence the decision of the proceedings (Woo, 2002). But in non-default cases, there was a significant relationship between the nature of the respondents and decisions. Even if the respondent submitted response, if the respondent was an individual, he was more likely to lose than a firm. Thus, the individuals have disadvantage in the UDRP system not just because the individual respondents did not submit responses. Having a representative was also found to make a difference in the outcome of the proceedings. Parties with representatives are more likely to win than those without. 23 The party with representatives, especially respondents, had much more chance to win. In addition, if the respondent had a representative, then even if the respondent was an individual, he did not have disadvantage. But if the respondent did not have representatives, individuals were still clearly disadvantaged in the UDRP proceedings. These findings that firms and those with representatives have great advantage in the system, demonstrate that financial and human resources play an important role in the system. Use of the Domain Name Panel’s decisions also seem to be influenced by the ways in which the respondents used their domain names. In Woo’s study, when respondents did not use the domain or did not have any content in the websites, 84.2% of the respondents lost their domain names. When respondents were using the domain name in a competitive way, such as using the website to compete with the complainant, linking the domain to the complainant or the respondent’s sites or advertising sites, they lost in 88.4% of the proceedings. Even if respondents proved that they were preparing some kind of project associated with the domain name, they lost in 76.3% of the cases. When respondents were using the domain name in a non-commercial way or in a commercial way but not related to the complainant, they lost domain names in 57.6% of the cases. Therefore, respondents had the best chance of preserving their names if they used it in a non- commercial or non-competitive way, but even so, their chance of retaining the names was less than half of the cases. These findings suggest that in order not to have the domain names transferred or cancelled, the respondents do not have many options to act 22 Among all the complainants, 91% are firms, 5% are non-profit organizations and government agencies, and 4% are individuals. On the other hand, 56% of the respondents are firm, 37% are individuals, and 7% are undefined. 23 While 16.7% of the respondents without representatives won the proceedings, only 16.7% who had representatives won (Woo, 2002).

Authors: Woo, Jisuk.
first   previous   Page 20 of 27   next   last



background image
20
of the respondents are individuals.
22
There may be many reasons why individuals have
disadvantage in the UDRP proceedings. In default cases where the respondents did not
submit responses, whether the respondent was an individual or a firm did not influence
the decision of the proceedings (Woo, 2002). But in non-default cases, there was a
significant relationship between the nature of the respondents and decisions. Even if the
respondent submitted response, if the respondent was an individual, he was more likely
to lose than a firm. Thus, the individuals have disadvantage in the UDRP system not just
because the individual respondents did not submit responses. Having a representative
was also found to make a difference in the outcome of the proceedings. Parties with
representatives are more likely to win than those without.
23
The party with
representatives, especially respondents, had much more chance to win. In addition, if
the respondent had a representative, then even if the respondent was an individual, he
did not have disadvantage. But if the respondent did not have representatives,
individuals were still clearly disadvantaged in the UDRP proceedings. These findings
that firms and those with representatives have great advantage in the system,
demonstrate that financial and human resources play an important role in the system.
Use of the Domain Name
Panel’s decisions also seem to be influenced by the ways in which the
respondents used their domain names. In Woo’s study, when respondents did not use the
domain or did not have any content in the websites, 84.2% of the respondents lost their
domain names. When respondents were using the domain name in a competitive way,
such as using the website to compete with the complainant, linking the domain to the
complainant or the respondent’s sites or advertising sites, they lost in 88.4% of the
proceedings. Even if respondents proved that they were preparing some kind of project
associated with the domain name, they lost in 76.3% of the cases. When respondents
were using the domain name in a non-commercial way or in a commercial way but not
related to the complainant, they lost domain names in 57.6% of the cases. Therefore,
respondents had the best chance of preserving their names if they used it in a non-
commercial or non-competitive way, but even so, their chance of retaining the names
was less than half of the cases. These findings suggest that in order not to have the
domain names transferred or cancelled, the respondents do not have many options to act
22
Among all the complainants, 91% are firms, 5% are non-profit organizations and government agencies,
and 4% are individuals. On the other hand, 56% of the respondents are firm, 37% are individuals, and 7%
are undefined.
23
While 16.7% of the respondents without representatives won the proceedings, only 16.7% who had
representatives won (Woo, 2002).


Convention
Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 20 of 27   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.