| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.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
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
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
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
