ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) UDRP Panel Issues Catch-22 Ruling On Reverse Domain Hi-Jacking
    posted by michael on Wednesday January 30 2002, @11:52AM

    Anonymous writes "A Uniform Domain Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) panel made a curious little aside in issuing this decision in favor of a domain name registrant: according to NAF Case No. FA0111000102179 there is never a reason for a UDRP panel to consider whether a complaint was brought in bad faith."



    Under paragraph 15(e) of the UDRP, a panel is to consider whether the complaint was brought in bad faith. In the past, panels have found bad faith complaints, or "reverse domain name hi-jacking" (RDNH) in situations where the good faith or legitimate rights of the domain name registrant should have been so eminently clear to the complainant, that the complaint could not have been sincerely made.

    In a dispute over a set of domain names including the generic term waterfrontliving.com, which was being used by the domain name owner for a site relevant to waterfront living, the panel concluded that the complainant had not satisfied a single requirement of the UDRP. On the question of whether the complaint was brought in bad faith, the panel stated:

    "Having found in favor of the Respondent, there is no need to address Respondent's claim of reverse domain name hijacking."

    This statement begs the question of just when these people think it would be appropriate to consider a Respondent's claim of reverse domain name hijacking. After all, there are only two parties to a UDRP proceeding. If the complainant wins, then obviously the panel concluded the complaint had merit. But this panel believes that if the respondent wins, then there is no need to consider the question.

    What is the point in having paragraph 15(e) of the Policy when there is, in this panel's opinion, never a reason to consider it?

     
      ICANNWatch Login  
    Nickname:

    Password:

    [ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

     
      Related Links  
  • NAF Case No. FA0111000102179
  •  
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    UDRP Panel Issues Catch-22 Ruling On Reverse Domain Hi-Jacking | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 19 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re: UDRP Panel Issues Catch-22 Ruling On Reverse D
    by hofjes on Wednesday January 30 2002, @12:01PM (#4766)
    User #60 Info
    The arbitrator is wrong. It should consider reverse domain name hijacking and opine accordingly.

    With that said, however, the rule regarding RDNH is lame. The only remedy the UDRP allows is domain name transfer. The respondent can never win damages or other relief. Accordingly, attempted RDNH is irrelevant. The only relevent factor is the respondent's bad faith. Sad but true.

    The arbitrator in this case recognizes that fact, and decided to unilaterally re-write the UDRP rule. The arbitrator is wrong. But, so is the UDRP.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: UDRP Panel Issues Catch-22 Ruling On Reverse D
    by hofjes on Thursday January 31 2002, @05:16AM (#4775)
    User #60 Info
    You talk about sqautters ignorning law. However, UDRP arbitrators, more often than not, ignore law. Now, the panels are citing other arbitration cases, like they are law.

    Domain name disputes belong in the court, where they are subject to the due process and real law.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    Re: Well, cry me a river....
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Friday February 01 2002, @08:36AM (#4787)
    User #2810 Info
    Now that's a poster kid to use against the UDRP. -g
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: ICANN
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Monday May 13 2002, @01:58AM (#6272)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    ICANN must stop all this nonsense in the name of the UDRP at WIPO and NAF - if they don't WE WILL!
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com