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 Basically OK, Study Suggests
    posted by DavidP on Sunday February 17 2002, @04:03AM

    The Max Planck Institute has now completed a major analysis of 700 UDRP decisions (available as a MS Word file, and in PDF format). Your worthy correspondent has not had the time yet to study this in any detail, but the conclusions look interesting, to say the least . . . ....



    The study concludes that "as a matter of principle, the UDRP is functioning satisfactorily," without any "major flaws," although the study does identify "several issues where the application of the Policy is unclear and needs further consideration": (a) the "conditions under which a domain name is found to be 'confusingly similar' with a trademark," (b) the "measures to be taken in order to safeguard the interests of free speech," and (c) the rules "concerning the burden of proof and the standards to be applied in the assessment of the parties' contentions." More, surely, to follow once this study has been digested and analyzed ...

     
      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  
  • MS Word file
  • PDF format
  •  
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    UDRP Basically OK, Study Suggests | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 28 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 Basically OK, Study Suggests
    by michael (froomkin@lawUNSPAM.tm) on Sunday February 17 2002, @06:38AM (#4903)
    User #4 Info | http://www.discourse.net/
    The biggest problem with the study is the methodology. To 'test' if the results were OK, the study authors showed decisions only to legal experts. Trouble is, without the briefs you have no idea what arguments were rejected. Part of the art of opnion-writing is making your selective reasoning look sensible. So I find this result almost meaningless, myself.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Pathetic - S.I.G. say S.I. is a Good Thing
    by WIPOorgUK on Wednesday February 20 2002, @11:10PM (#4987)
    User #3146 Info | http://wipo.org.uk/

    Pathetic - Special Interest Group says their Special Interest, looking after Big Business, is a Good Thing.

    Yes, I know trademarks are for good of people as well as Big Business - but that is not where they are coming from.

    I found the conclusions of this report biased - they also left out certain cases.

    Fact: UDRP is not only imperfect and inconsistent - it a fatally flawed system.

    Fact: You are being deceived - the authorities know the answer to trademark problems on the Internet.

    The United States Department of Commerce and the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization are hiding it.

    The US Patent and Trademark Office virtually admitted this, "The questions you raised with respect to trademark conflicts, as well as the proposed solutions, have their basis in good common-sense. As such, they have been debated and discussed quite exhaustively within the USPTO, the Administration, and internationally."

    Honest attorneys, including the honourable G. Gervaise Davis III (UN WIPO panellist judge), have ratified the solution.

    Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone (please check). Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.

    This is most important - as Sunrise and UDRP abridges what words people can use in an open (repeat - OPEN) gTLD. They also give priority of one business over another.

    Please keep re-reading last paragraph until you completely understand - they violate the First Amendment and go against Unfair Competition Law.

    That is quite apart and separate from the fact that they know the solution.

    Which is this:

    User enters apple.com - is redirected to apple.computer.us.reg

    User enters apple.newTLD - is redirected to apple.record.uk.reg

    In the address bar - can you tell the difference between, apple.computer.us.reg and apple.record.uk.reg?

    So, no 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' there then. A new restricted TLD, of .REG, for trademarks would act as certificate of authentication and directory, when entered directly.

    Lawyers read feeble excuses link on my site before replying - I have heard them all.

    Nobody wants the solution - because by not having it they gain. Primarily - Lawyers get loads of money from the conflicts and Big Business by muffling criticism and ensuring they monopolize their trademark words on the Internet.

    My beliefs and findings, above and on my site, have proven corruption beyond all reasonable doubt - nobody can refute the logical conclusions made.

    Please visit WIPO.org.uk - nothing to do with United Nations WIPO.org.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Ranting
    by WIPOorgUK on Thursday February 21 2002, @11:51AM (#4998)
    User #3146 Info | http://wipo.org.uk/
    I give logical, rational and reasoned argument.

    It is not ranting.

    You are just sore you do not have a counter-argument.

    You even resorted to abuse on previous posts and now using these false claims.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 4 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