| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
ICANN opens forum on new TLD applications
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 22 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
You raise an intriguing point - should ICANN's new TLDs be subject to challange, and subsequent transfer or cancelation, under ICANN's own UDRP.
Certainly ICANN's adoption of .biz (despite a pre-existing TLD by the same name) turns up numerous hits on the USPT0's web site.
Same for "mobi" - there are preexisting trademarks.
Same for "cat" and "post" and "aero" and ... well just about all of 'em.
Perhaps ICANN ought to finally realize that the UDRP is a disaster, a supranational law created by the IP industry to expand their rights, made through a process that actively excluded other concerned parties.
But even if ICANN doesn't have such a revelation, they ought to be willing to live by the rules they impose on others and allow TLDs to be challanged by ICANN's own UDRP processes.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Should the UDRP apply to TLDs?
by KarlAuerbach
|
| Starting Score: |
2 |
points |
| Karma-Bonus Modifier |
|
+1 |
|
| Total Score: |
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
The UDRP is an unmitigated disaster.
It has never worked well.
If there were merit in the UDRP then one would think that names of deities, schools, educational institutions, people, cities, and such would merit the right to raise the UDRP to protect those names.
But no. The UDRP requires a trademark as a condition precedent. That means that the UDRP is only useful as a weapon in the hands of trademark owners. Other people who have rights in a name have recourse for protection to the legal system that the intellectual property people felt was too expensive and too slow for them.
This is one sided and unfair.
Moreover, the UDRP was constructed on the backs of net users - Take a look at the history of the UDRP the whole process was corrupted and perverted in favor of a an outcome that vastly extended intellectual property protection beyone anything seen before on this planet - it was a septic conception from the outset.
If the UDRP were fair and fairly conceived and fairly applied as you suggest, that would only strenghen the argument that the UDRP ought to be applied to ICANN's new TLDs.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| | | 2 replies beneath your current threshold. |
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
|
