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)


     
    This discussion has been archived.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 ]
    Re: UDRP Basically OK, Study Suggests
    by Anonymous on Monday February 18 2002, @03:41AM (#4921)
    An authorative study has been completed by a Canadian professor. I suspect the motive of the study by this Institute.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: UDRP Basically OK, Study Suggests
    by Anonymous on Monday February 18 2002, @05:47AM (#4933)
    This is a complete BS.
    What study one should do to understand how corrupted WIPO and ARBFORUM are ?
    Just look at their decision briefly, look how they contradict themselves again and again, and you wil lsee that in theory, any domain owner is cybersquatter since you can find one case or some arguements from previous cases.
    edmund.com - a "sophisticated registrant" has less rights.
    barcelona.com
    banco.com

    and so on..
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: UDRP Basically OK, Study Suggests
    by Anonymous on Monday February 18 2002, @06:21AM (#4935)
    Just as there are bad court decisions, there are bad UDRP decisions. But bad decisions don't ruin the whole pot. The UDRP generally works pretty well, helping to reduce cybersquatting and place domain names with the proper owners.

    The Banco.com, Barcelona.com and Edmund.com results are bad, Banco.com especially bad, but these cases should not damn the whole process. These cases can be challenged in federal court. Barcelona.com may go the other way when the Eastern District of Virginia issues its decision, and banco.com should be appealed.

    As for the Edmund.com decision, there is nothing wrong with placing a little blame on "sophisticated users"- there a people who register domain names who clearly should know better.
    [ 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 ]
    Re: Moderators
    by Anonymous on Thursday February 21 2002, @08:28AM (#4994)
    Can we do something about the joker from Wipo.org.uk who keeps ranting on this site?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Ranting by WIPOorgUK Thursday February 21 2002, @11:51AM


    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