Hal,
I do not doubt that you have in your possession a completely worthless and irrelevant letter that was sent to you by an attorney who could probably barely contain his laughter when he sent it to you. As I understand your position, you believe that this letter somehow "nullifies" the WIPO decision or renders it to be "withdrawn". Because I like you, I will take the time to explain why he was laughing. I will conclude by explaining why I like you.
A decision rendered by a legal authority is only nullified by that authority, or by one in a position of higher authority. The WIPO rules state that a decision can be withdrawn by the panel, or else rendered ineffective by a court decision. After the WIPO decision was issued by the panel, you and the complainant did not have the power to change the decision, absent following the procedure prescribed for doing so. That's a central principle of the idea that parties to a dispute having recourse to submitting their dispute to an adjudicatory authority in the first place.
Let me make that clear by an example.
Take Norma Jean McCorvey. She was the "Jane Roe" plaintiff in the Supreme Court's _Roe v. Wade_ decision declaring that a categorical ban on abortion was an impermissible invasion of medical privacy. Wade was the attorney general of the State of Texas. Through a quirk of American Constitutional Law, when you bring a suit to challenge a law, the case is officially brought against the person responsible for enforcement of the law.
Since that 1973 decision, Ms. McCorvey has changed her views on the issue of abortion, although of course she never actually had an abortion because the litigation lasted longer than her pregnancy. In a bit of political theater earlier this year, Ms. McCorvey has filed a petition with a Texas federal court to have her case nullified, because she has changed her mind:
http://www.ifa-usapray.org/OnWatch/OnWatch2003Archive/onwatch-June_18_2003.asp
Now, and here is the part I want you to understand - It wouldn't matter one iota to the decision in _Roe v. Wade_ if she sends a letter to Wade agreeing to "nullify" or "withdraw" her complaint, her petition to the Supreme Court, and every document filed in that case. The case ended when the decision was issued. What either of the parties says to the other after the decision was issued is utterly without any legal significance whatsoever concerning that opinion.
Take a simpler example, if the message is still not getting through. Let's say that you and I have a car accident. You then sue me for running a red light, you win, and the judge finds me negligent and awards you $50,000. The next day, I come to you and say, "I'd like to appeal this thing, but how about if we make a deal instead. You have your lawyer send me a letter saying I didn't run the red light and I'll give you $50,000."
Do you take that deal? Of course you do. You are going to get the exact amount awarded to you. What do you care?
Now, the next year, my insurance company raises my rate because I was found by a court to be negligent. I protest and send them the letter saying, "But, look here, the other guy's lawyer sent me a letter saying I didn't run the red light - the judgment is nullified!"
I can assure you that the insurance company will be, at best, amused. The only thing that would nullify the decision would be that of the same court on a motion for reconsideration, or a higher court.
So, please, spare my fax machine with the pointless and legally meaningless letter that was fobbed off onto you by the complainant's attorney. It was quite enough to be harangued by you at length on the telephone at my office.
The WIPO decision which I cited is not a "withdrawn" decision. It is not an overturned decision. It is not a decision which has in any way been rendered inoperative or without legal effect by the fact of your possession of a letter from a party who was not at that time capable - after the decision was rendered - of withdrawing the decision. Your statement that the WIPO decision is "withdrawn" is factually incorrect. It is, of course, not a deliberate falsehood, because you have clearly demonstrated that you do not understand your statement to be incorrect.
However, in a profession which often must deal with gray issues, the principle that only an issuing authority or a higher authority may withdraw one of its decisions is a "bright line", fundamental concept of law. It is the basis for the entire notion of submitting a dispute to an authority of any kind.
In fact, I refer your attention to this decision:
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/dbiz2002-00270.html
"Finally, as a matter of unique interest, Complainant and Respondent requested that the Panelââ¬â¢s determination not be published.
[...]
Complainant did not provide grounds for its request, nor did Respondent provide any reason for its concurrence. Although the Panel has authority to redact portions of a decision under the STOP in an exceptional case, the Panel sees no reason to redact any portion of this one. The request by Complainant is denied. This decision shall be published in its entirety. "
That was a STOP decision, which has similar publication rules to the UDRP. The Panelist in that case fully grasped the point I am making here, and which still has not gotten through to you. BOTH parties wanted to withdraw the proceeding after the decision was rendered. It didn't matter. It matters even less in the situation you describe where no such request was even communicated to the Panel.
Finally, let's take a look at *why* I even bothered to cite that WIPO decision, shall we?
In the course of condemning other people, you asked, in reference to the bhf.org decision:
"If I were in the wrong --how come I won the arbitration?"
Well, gee, Hal. The decision I cited contains a passage which specifically refers to the bhf.org decision, and specifically explains why you WON the bhf.org case. Are you saying, because this later case is "withdrawn" in your mind, that their observation that you WON the bhf.org case is also wrong? Does this letter of yours proclaim some sort of universal "opposite day" in which there is no factual or legal statement in the later decision which is true? Because the ndcs.org case has been rendered a nullity, do we then go back and reverse the bhf.org case because the ndcs.org panel AGREED WITH THE RESULT OF THE CASE YOU WON IN THE PASSAGE I QUOTED?
So, anyone still reading, that is the "erroneous information" that I am accused of posting - a passage from a WIPO decision that expressly noted that Hal had won a prior UDRP case. Hal considers it damaging to his reputation that two WIPO panels agreed on the point in question - that Hal had done nothing wrong relative to the bhf.org domain name - which was the question Hal had asked.
And, Hal, I'll also explain the reason why I like you so much. I am sure you are too modest to tell the folks in this forum the remarkable story behind Stanley Kubrick's decision to cast you as yourself in his epic production of _2001_, and for which I have been a longtime fan of yours:
---
Hal. Good afternoon, Mr Amer. Everything is going extremely well.
Amer. Hal, you have an enormous responsibility on this mission, in many ways perhaps the greatest responsibility of any single mission element. You are the brain and central nervous system of the ship, and your responsibilities include watching over the men in hibernation. Does this ever cause you any - lack of confidence?
Hal. Let me put it this way, Mr Amer. The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.
Amer. Hal, despite your enormous intellect, are you ever frustrated by your dependence on people to carry out actions?
Hal. Not in the slightest bit. I enjoy working with people. I have a stimulating relationship with Dr Poole and Dr Bowman. My mission responsibilities range over the entire operation of the ship, so I am constantly occupied. I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all, I think, that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Amer. Dr Poole, what's it like living for the better part of a year in such close proximity with Hal?
Poole. Well, it's pretty close to what you said about him earlier, he is just like a sixth member of the crew - very quickly get adjusted to the idea that he talks, and you think of him - uh -really just as another person.
Amer. In talking to the computer, one gets the sense that he is capable of emotional responses, for example when I asked him about his abilities, I sensed a certain pride in his answer about his accuracy and perfection. Do you believe that Hal has genuine emotions?
Bowman. Well, he acts like he has genuine emotions. Er - of course, he's programmed that way, to make it easier for us to talk to him, but as to whether or not he has real feelings is something I don't think anyone can truthfully answer.
