|
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.
|
|
|
|
[ 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
]
|
|
|
|
|
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
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose that I should have read the intro first - I thought he was describing the UDRP ;)
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
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
]
|
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
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
]
|
|
|
|
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
]
|
|
|
|
|
wot on earth is a 'thing thing' please?!?
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
| 3 replies beneath your current threshold. |
