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

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    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
    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.
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (AD2000DNO@SPAMYAHOO.CO.UK) on Tuesday June 04 2002, @04:02PM (#6822)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/




    This so-called UDRP Decision is fundamentally flawed, inaccurate, biased and factually incorrect in so many ways it is unbelievable. The Panel's refusal to accept valid submissions paid for and provided within the required time limits is unacceptable, immoral and unfair. There are so many errors of fact and meaningless or contradictory statements in this Decision that we feel we have other choice than to refuse to accept the Panel's Decision. The Decision is clearly invalid in that: (i) One, or more, of the Panelists clearly discussed and also leaked details of the Case and it's Decision (indeed, it seems most likely, also the Full Decision and Determination) to the International Trademark Association and possibly also other news agencies and/or any other interested organisations and individuals. (ii) The Panel clearly and evidently has not made the Decision based upon all of the evidence available. Refusal to accept an essential and damning Supplemental Submission on the basis that the Respondent did not seek the Panel's permission is laughable in the extreme. By their own admission, clearly both the Forum and the Complainant received the Respondent's Supplemental Submission with correct payment and in due time on June 3, A TOTAL OF SEVENTEEN DAYS BEFORE THE PANEL WAS EVEN APPOINTED. How on earth could the Respondent seek permission from a non-existent Panel? Indeed, the Case Administrator clearly accepted the Extra Submission as fully valid and therefore formed an essential and indisputable part of the Respondent's Response. In the absence of a Panel having been appointed at that time, she clearly had authority to make such a judgment by virtue of her position is Case Administrator and effectual Arbiter of such matters UNTIL the Panel was officially appointed on June 20 and also served with both the Complainant's Complaint and the Respondent's Response. The Panel's stated position clearly insults the intelligence and common-sense of the Case Administrator and, by connection, also clearly disputes and undermines both the competence, authority and jurisdiction of the National Arbitration Forum. I find this attitude unacceptable, disrespectful and repugnant. (iii) The Decision contains bizarre inaccuracies (for example, arguing that because the Respondent registered a domain name he never did in fact - at any time - register ("AOL.INSTANTMESSENGER.NAME"), makes him a proven CyberSquatter. The Panel also makes the extremely unfair assumption that the Respondent would undoubtedly link this unregistered domain to his websites. Clearly this makes many of the Panel's comments meaningless in light of the true facts. (iv) The Panel comments make gross errors of both assumption and fact against the Respondent without any genuine or factually correct evidence or proof whatsoever, nor with any sufficiently fair, logical or legal basis given for their views. (v) The Supplemental Submission by the Respondent was, and is, an essentially damning collection of evidence against the Complainant and their spurious Claims that has clearly been sidelined for reasons of both favouritism, partiality, prejudice and unfairness. Again, I am disgusted by this blatant disregard for what genuine "Arbitration" stands for. (vi) Furthermore, even without their Supplemental Submission, the Respondent's Response clearly showed that the Complainant's Claim was false under UDRP Rules; the Complainant only proved one of the three necessary key points, when they needed to prove all three under UDRP Rules, where as the Respondent proved two out of three corresponding key points for maintaining ownership and usage of "AIM5.COM." Just as importantly, the Respondent has made long-term legitimate NON-COMMERCIAL use of the "AIM5.COM" without either registration in bad faith, nor intend to defraud, confuse or mislead, nor with a view to tarnishing any trademarks of the Complainant, nor to abuse or defame the them in any way whatsoever. (vii) The Respondent finds it amazing that the Complainant has now effectively "won" ALL THIRTY-TWO of their Cases brought by themselves to the National Arbitration Forum. (viii) ICANN's UDRP Rules clearly exonerate the Respondent and even simply relying on the clear reasoning and statements of the Respondent, the Complainant simply failed to prove their Case. Furthermore, the Panel clearly should have decided the Respondent is entitled to continue both owning and using "AIM5.COM." Indeed, the Panel should also have led to a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking by the Complainant, on the basis of the Respondent's prior offers to transfer "AOLCYBERCAFE.COM", "AOLINTERNETCAFE.COM" and "AOLNETCAFE.COM" FREE OF CHARGE to the Complainant OVER A YEAR BEFORE THE RESPONDENT SUBMITTED THEIR RESPONSE TO THE FORUM BEFORE THEIR DEADLINE OF APRIL 29, as well as clear and malicious "harassment" of the Respondent by the Complainant in light of both prior offers and the Respondent's proven ill health, evidenced as greatly worsened by the Complainant's needless actions in pursuing this Case for it's own ends. The Respondent also later repeatedly offered ALL of the Dispute Domain Names AT COST to the Complainant. The Complainant refused both offers and proceeded to continue harassing and attempting to intimidate the Respondent into giving up the four domain names without either cost or dispute. The Respondent has never denied the Complainant opportunity to receive transfer of three of the Disputed Domain Names and only argued for keeping "AIM5.COM" in that it did not break ICANN's UDRP Rules on the usage and maintenance of internet domain names. (ix) Both the Panel's comments and their Decision flies in the face of both UDRP and the Forum's Supplemental Rules, which have been clearly laid down and endorsed by ICANN, as well as by the abundant evidence of numerous prior cases. In light of the above, we ("Adrian Paul Miles" and associates, operating as ANNO DOMINI 2000 DOMAINS), cannot accept the Panel's Decision as either Valid or Legally-Binding. We therefore request the Decision by overturned by the Arbitration Forum and, if deemed necessary, by ICANN themselves, as clearly and evidently the Panel's comments, arguments and Decision mostly go against the UDRP Rules themselves. Indeed, the Panel's comments and Decision blatantly undermine the dual purpose of both the UDRP and Arbitration itself - namely, equality, impartiality, fairness and justice. For these reasons, we OBJECT to the Panel's comments, their disregard of admitted and timely evidence and - just as importantly - the Panel's Decision and Determination in this Case. We wish to make it known that we will not stand for CORRUPTION, PARTIALITY AND ABUSE of both ICANN'S UDRP and Supplemental Forum Rules; We therefore demand the Decision is REVERSED by a higher authority. We wish to make it known we are also prepared to sue any Panelist proven to have leaked the Case before it was officially announced, as well as take the Case to Judicial Review under the US Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. I, "ADRIAN PAUL MILES", will not tolerate being publicly labelled a CyberSquatter, when I am not. I will also not allow either ICANN's UDRP Rules or the National Arbitration Forum Policies' Procedures and Processes to be made a laughing-stock amongst the grassroots Internet Community worldwide.

    WRITTEN THIS DAY: 10:22PM BST, JUNE 4, 2002



    (on behalf of the non-profit making friends' co-operative ANNO DOMINI 2000)

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Tuesday June 04 2002, @04:43PM (#6824)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    If you're so adamant about your sites being noncommercial in nature, why did you use .com domains for them?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: panelist figures
    by ANNODOMINI2000 (AD2000DNO@SPAMYAHOO.CO.UK) on Saturday June 15 2002, @10:42PM (#7212)
    User #3359 Info | http://www.ad2000d.co.uk/
    Bias and unfairness ARE forms of corruption.

    You can't have it both ways - the evidence shows they are either stupid or corrupt. From their cv's they SHOULD be neither, but my case proves they are either or both.

    The facts speak for themselves - wait 'til you see my Appendices... You'll then see why the didn't want to consider them!
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply 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