| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.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
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
|
Dan you spent way too much time dreaming during this post. The UDRP works great, and is fair to respondents. Half the battle is showing up. If you don't show up, the basic assumption is that you registered the name in bad faith and you have no legitimate use. Nothing wrong with that. In the cases in which respondents have shown up, and have had decent arguments to make, they've done pretty well. Ralph Lauren-Polo is on a pretty good losing streak right now, for example. There have been bad, terrible decisions, and heel.com & barcelona.com are but two examples. However, the UDRP generally works well and should be kept around in its present form.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
|
It is wring to think that every case brought by complainants under the UDRP is due to greedy reverse domain name hijacking. The UDRP works well, and has helped put a stop to rampant cybersquatting.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
If we just look at ICANN from the side we can see what they are up to.
A bunch of scammers trying to confuse the public day in and day out with biased decisions.
They contradict themselves endless times in order to confuse the public as well as companies to file more cases with them.
This is a business,let's nto forget it.
It is not about justice becuase if it was, it would be very easy to create a namespace for only trademark holders.
If it was about justice, there would be alternatives to transfer a name.
How about simply telling the "abuser" to change his content in order to not confuse? how about ordering the "abuser" to put a message that he is not related to the trademark holder?
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
|
|
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
]
|
| |
|
|
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
]
|
| |
|
|
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
]
|
| |
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
|
