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) Dan's Dispute Resolution Procedure (DDRP)
    posted by michael on Tuesday June 04 2002, @02:48AM

    dtobias writes "There's a lot of dissatisfaction with the UDRP as a way to resolve domain name disputes, but nobody seems to be proposing anything specific to take its place. To fill this gap, here's a proposal for a dispute resolution procedure which ought to produce decisions no more unfair than those of the UDRP, but a lot more fun. I modestly name it "Dan's Dispute Resolution Procedure" (DDRP). Here's how it works:"



    1) The complainant initiates the procedure by filing a complaint that addresses the following points:

    a) How the complainant is/are really nice guy(s)/gal(s), who would never do anything mean, nasty, or unfair to anybody, and are in fact working on solutions to poverty, disease, and the Middle East crisis that would be hastened greatly if they won this case.

    b) How the respondent is/are really evil guy(s)/gal(s), clearly having turned to the Dark Side of the Force, and are responsible for everything bad in the world; it would be a great public service to crush them like cockroaches (or eat them like cockroaches, if it's on an episode of Fear Factor). Creativity in insulting language is encouraged.

    c) How the intended use for the disputed domain name, should the complainant win it, will be of enormous public service to the Internet compared to the really stupid use or nonuse that the respondent is making.

    d) The complainant should provide a list of all known domain names, in addition to the one(s) under dispute, owned by the respondent, as far as the complainant is able to uncover them; this will be of use to the panelists as described later.

    2) The respondent then files a response that addresses the following points:

    a) How the respondent is/are really nice guy(s)/gal(s), despite all the lies the complainant has told.

    b) How the complainant is/are really evil guy(s)/gal(s), who are abusing this procedure as their Death Star to crush freedom on the Internet.

    c) How, in fact, the respondent's past, present, and/or future use of the disputed domain name is, too, way better than anything the complainant is likely to do with it if they succeed in their reverse hijacking.

    d) The respondent should provide a list of all known domain names, in addition to the one(s) under dispute, owned by the complainant, as far as the respondent is able to uncover them; this will be of use to the panelists as described later.

    3) The complaint and response are then posted on a publicly accessible Web site, and a public forum is provided where anybody in the Internet public can make comments, suggestions, personal attacks, flames, irrelevant digressions, political diatribes, meaningless one-liners, etc., just as they do on all other Internet forums. They may also suggest additions to the lists of other domain names owned by the complainant or respondent if they are able to discover others not mentioned in the documents filed so far. In addition to augmenting the Owned Domains lists, this discussion serves the two purposes of increasing the fun level of the whole process, and providing material which may prove relevant to the Charisma and Karma Scores described below.

    4) After a 30 day public comment period ends, the judging begins. The complainant and respondent are each given a numerical score as described below. If a three-member panel is elected, each panelist keeps score independently and the average of their scores is used, as there are some subjective elements which may vary between judges.

    a) Each party to the case starts out with 100 points, except that any party who had a lawyer prepare their complaint or response starts with only 50 points, because Shakespeare was right about lawyers.

    b) Any party to the case whose legal name contains ".com" in it loses 50 points, because putting ".com" in your name is such an idiotic trendroid thing that it deserves to be penalized.

    c) Any party to the case whose legal name contains any element other than ".com" that is clearly derived from something in a domain address, like ".net", ".org", ".info", ".uk", etc., loses 25 points... that's still idiotic, but hasn't been as badly overdone by the trendroids.

    d) Any party to the case whose legal name contains anything else that, in the opinion of the panelist, represents silly trendroidism, including but not limited to "e-" and "i-" prefixes, loses 25 points (in addition to any points lost in other categories... thus, a complainant or respondent whose legal name is "E-Krappy.com, Inc." loses 75 points, 50 for the ".com" and 25 for the "E-"... or maybe 100 points if the panelist decides that the cutesy misspelling of "Crappy" counts as another offense).

    e) The number of domain names owned by each party (other than the one(s) under dispute) is counted up, based on the submissions by both parties and the public (checked against WHOIS information in case somebody was lying). Each party loses one point for each domain they own other than the disputed name(s), on the grounds that, the more they already have, the less logical reason they have to get yet another one... they ought to learn how to use subdomains logically. If, for either party, no more than one other domain name than the one(s) under dispute is found that they own, they are given a bonus of 50 points for either being highly efficient in their domain name usage, or very clever about concealing the WHOIS data of their domains so that nobody can find any of the others they're squatting on.

    f) Depending on which TLD the challenged domain is within, the parties gain and lose points in accordance with the aptness of that TLD for the type of entity they are. (If there are several domains in different TLDs being challenged in the same case, this can result in a split decision, with different scores for the parties with regard to each domain.) A party gains 50 points if the TLD is completely appropriate for them, loses 50 points if it is completely inappropriate, and does not gain or lose points if the appropriateness is partial or ambiguous. For instance, if a .com domain is under challenge, and the complainant is a nonprofit organization and the respondent is a commercial business, the complainant loses 50 points and the respondent gains 50 points; the opposite would happen if the domain under challenge is .org. If the complainant or respondent is an individual, they neither gain or lose points for a .com or .org domain as they aren't unambiguously a commercial or noncommercial entity; however, if a sufficiently convincing case is made in the complaint or response to demonstrate the definitively commercial or noncommercial use of the domain, points might be given or taken in such cases. Anybody claiming "noncommercial fair use" in their defense in a response over a .com domain will lose 50 points regardless of what type of entity they really are, because if their use really is noncommercial, why the hell did they use a TLD that indicates that they're commercial??? Similar judgments will be made about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the parties in other TLDs, old and new -- for instance, any entity that is not a museum would lose 50 points in a dispute over a .museum domain, and any entity without a presence or connection to the island of Tuvalu would lose 50 points in a dispute over a .tv domain.

    g) The complaint and response are each judged for quality and creativity. Spelling and grammar count, though allowances should be made by the panelists in cases where the language of the proceedings is not the native language of the complainant and/or respondent. Each party is awarded from 0 to 100 points, as if it were a high school English essay grade. Is this a fair criterion to use in judging who deserves to get or keep a domain name? Not really, though neither are the criteria being used now with the UDRP. At least this will encourage domains to wind up in the hands of articulate writers, which will hopefully increase the average writing quality on Web sites.

    h) A "Charisma Score" is assigned by the panelist to each party based on the panelist's assessment of their level of likeability. Comments each party made about themselves and their opponent can be used to help arrive at this, as well as the contents of their respective Web sites and the comments made by the public during the public comment period. A score ranging from -100 to +100 is given, where -100 is worst and +100 best. For instance, a rapacious corporation abusing its trademarks to bully people might get -100, while somebody creating really brilliant parody Web sites might get +100, or less if the parodies really aren't very funny. This score is added to the total score, increasing or decreasing it depending on whether it's positive or negative.

    i) A "Karma Score" is assigned by the panelist to each party based on the amount of good or bad impact the actual or proposed use of the domain name in question by the parties would be likely to have on the Internet-using public. (This differs from the "Charisma" score in that the former is based on the public perception of the participants, while this one is based on the panelist's assessment of the true impact the parties are likely to have, even if some of it is subtle, hidden, or frequently misunderstood.) This score also goes from -100 to +100, where, for instance, warehousing the domain with no use at all is probably a zero, putting up a really great, original, useful Web site is worth a high positive number, and putting up a useless site that pops up lots of annoying ads at the user is worth a high negative number.

    5) The scores are added up for each party to the case.

    6) If both parties have a negative score, then the domain name(s) in question are cancelled and neither party is allowed to register them; it's time to let somebody else have a chance at them.

    7) If one or more parties have a positive score, then the party with the highest score wins; if it's the respondent, he/she/they gets to keep the domain(s) in dispute, while if it's the complainant, he/she/they gets the domain(s) transferred to him/her/them (unless he/she/they was stupid enough to request cancellation rather than transfer). If the respondent has a positive score and the complainant has a negative score, then a finding of reverse domain hijacking is additionally rendered; this is not actually worth anything, but it can be waved around as a moral victory of some sort. If the complainant has a positive score and the respondent has a negative score, the respondent is probably a dirty cybersquatter, and the complainant really ought to have sued under the anti-cybersquatting law passed by the U.S. Congress, under which they could have gotten money damages in addition to the domain name.

    8) If the scores are tied, then the complainant and respondent, or designated representatives of these parties, must meet at a location designated by the resolution provider for an arm-wrestling match, covered by live webcast, to decide the case.


     
      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. ]

     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Dan's Dispute Resolution Procedure (DDRP) | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 58 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.
    NAF UDRP PANELISTS ARE HEREBY PROVEN TO BE CORRUPT
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Tuesday June 04 2002, @04:02PM (#6822)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    1

    Read the rest of this comment...

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Dan's Dispute Resolution Procedure (DDRP)
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Tuesday June 04 2002, @10:54PM (#6828)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Actually, I realise Michael (Dan) was trying his hardest to be humoro(u)s and - to a large extent - he clearly succeeded!

    However, as the saying goes, MUCH TRUTH IS SAID IN JEST.

    Michael points out the paradoxes of polarised and prejudiced Panelists and the varying degrees and varying levels of morality and immorality of the pratice of 'CyberSquatting.'

    (I personally hate that term being applied to non-CyberSquatters and think it is even illogical when applying it to actual CyberSquatters... Think about it. Squatters don't buy property, nor do they even pay rent for it. So-called CyberSquatters do - the domain names they have registered on a first-come, first-served basis are 'their' intellectual property. This is why so many paradoxes and difficulties can be created when registered trademarks or famous names are registered by other than their namesakes or those registering them on their behalf or as a gift of goodwill towards them.)
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    'CYBERSQUATTER' SUES ICANN & NATIONAL ARBITRATION
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Wednesday June 05 2002, @10:34PM (#6873)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    NOTIFICATION OF PENDING LITIGATION


    RE NAF UDRP DECISION - AOL (USA), Inc. v Adrian Paul Miles o/as AD2000D.COM (UK)


    BOTH ICANN AND THE NATIONAL ARBITRATIO FORUM HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED THAT UNLESS THEY OVERTURN OR REVERSE THIS BLATANTLY BIASED, CORRUPT, IRREGULAR AND HIGHLY UNFAIR UDRP DECISION IN THE ABOVE CASE WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE DECISION'S ANNOUNCEMENT (WHICH IS NECESSARY DUE TO SELF-IMPOSED TIME RESTRAINTS WITHIN ICANN'S UDRP RULES), WE WILL BE SUING BOTH ICANN AND THE NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM FOR BOTH DAMAGES AND COMPENSATION AT LAW FOR BLATANT AND CLEAR FAILURE TO EITHER ENDORSE OR POLICE THEIR OWN RULES, REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES.


    WRITTEN THIS DAY: 9am BST, JUNE 6, 2002


    BY: MILES, Adrian Paul (Mr.)
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    AD2000D vs. ICANNWatch
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Thursday June 06 2002, @08:32AM (#6888)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    This forum is full of people who are strongly opposed either to the UDRP itself or to the manner in which it's been applied by the resolution providers and panelists. Hence, Mr. AD2000D would have had great opportunity to gain sympathy for his side here, if he hadn't spoiled it by acting in a crackpotted manner. There are good lines of argument to be made against trying to enforce trademarks on domain names without regard to whether their existence or use actually harms the trademark owner (and, as far as I can see, this guy is more of a harmless nuisance than a serious threat to anybody), and certainly at least some of his names are sufficiently generic ("AIM" is used as a word or acronym in many contexts, e.g., for the American Indian Movement, and hence is a very weak mark) that it's questionable whether the UDRP ought to have ordered them taken away from him.

    However, rather than stick to the reasonable lines of argument, he instead makes all sorts of wild, unsubstantiated accusations of corruption, goes off on long rambling tangents with irrelevancies and sometimes just plain incorrect facts -- for instance, he repeatedly asserts that domain registrars normally only sell in bulk to resellers rather than to individuals and businesses actually intending to use their domains, while this may perhaps be true of BulkRegister, with which he deals himself, it's certainly not true of most of the other registrars, who sell and actively market to individual registrants.

    By acting like a kook, he's given up the natural support he might otherwise have been expected to find here.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Dan's Dispute Resolution Procedure (DDRP)
    by hofjes on Tuesday June 04 2002, @05:38AM (#6807)
    User #60 Info
    It's interesting how those happy with the UDRP are always "anonymous" on this site.

    Similiarly, those generally happy with ICANN are always "anonymous".

    So embarrased, or so desired to be incognito, that they cannot even register a pseudonym.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Dan's Dispute Resolution Procedure (DDRP)
    by ross (rossattucowsdatcam) on Tuesday June 04 2002, @06:57AM (#6809)
    User #3098 Info
    I suppose that I should have read the intro first - I thought he was describing the UDRP ;)
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Dan's Dispute Resolution Procedure (DDRP)
    by RFassett on Tuesday June 04 2002, @08:00AM (#6812)
    User #3226 Info | http://www.enum.info
    the fact that ICANN has not moved forward with registry competition (TLD expansion) shows that UDRP has proven to be part of an unstable solution in protecting Intellectual Property as this relates to registrations at the second level. There is really no other conclusion to draw than this. It's not so much that every case brought before UDRP must be judged "correctly" (as no system is perfect all of the time), it's a matter that the UDRP mechanism in general does not provide the type of stable environment necessary to allow market place competition. For this reason, I am not sure how anyone can state that "UDRP works well". In fact, it is a statement that is not possible to be true otherwise IP concerns would be considered properly addressed and competition moving forward.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: And furthermore...
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Tuesday June 04 2002, @11:10PM (#6831)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    True.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: And furthermore...
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Tuesday June 04 2002, @11:11PM (#6832)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    True also.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Creative Domain Names and Corporate Clowns
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Tuesday June 04 2002, @11:17PM (#6834)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Yep. I agree.

    Oi, NICE name, mate! Think we'll 'ave that off ya ta' very much!! (*thud* *wack*)

    Many (not all!) corporate big business are simply BIG BULLIES who protect one anothers' backs and cling together at Trademark Conventions, plotting how to destry small business and merge their businesses to squash fair competition.

    So what should we do about it?

    Get a couple of stones and a sling, if you've got the guts! (*nb. not literally, but figurately and spiritually, of course*)
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Anonymous and Incognito Posters
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Tuesday June 04 2002, @11:21PM (#6836)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    What have they got to hide??

    Who do they represent?

    For example, I am persoanlly firmly convinced that one of the Panelists in my UDRP Case with AOL published defamatory and slanderous comments on this site's forum, which are mostly all still here for all to see! (*you can clearly make up your own minds who the 'real' loser is* LOL)
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: 'thing thing'??
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (reversethis-{KU.OC.OOHAY} {ta} {D0002DA}) on Tuesday June 04 2002, @11:25PM (#6837)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    wot on earth is a 'thing thing' please?!?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 3 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