| At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
NeuLevel does *Not* have a Sunrise!
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 4 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
Sept. 26 through Sept. 30 .biz randomly assigns domain names
What more do you need? Its a waste of $90.00.
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
 |
Regarding the question how on earth does one prove bad faith registration, when there's no opportunity for the registrant to use the domain name to demonstrate that bad faith?, I would note that this has not in any way prevented several UDRP arbitration panels and panelists from saying that bad faith can be discerned from the mere fact of registration and/or registration plus failure to use. So if you just ignore the rules, it's easy.
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
 |
Grumpy writes:
The "duck test" doesn't fly here. If Neulevel had the sunrise policy preferred by INTA and other IP constituencies, it would allow TM owners to obtain vast numbers of domain names before the general public had a chance to apply. (See, e.g., the .info sunrise plan.
Feh. The fact that various forces have proffered an ultraist definition of a "sunrise" hardly means that any less restrictive implementation is therefore not a sunrise. INTA et al. were certainly aware that whatever they proposed would be subject to reveision; they therefore have a strong incentive to make extreme proposals. The consequence, as I said, is to privilege commercial interests. In some cases, this can surely be appropriate; but the problem with the ICAN process in this regard is that the IP zealots regard the entire namespace as theirs first. We're left with only minor variations within that basic model.
Even at $90 per claim, it's a reduction in transaction costs for both sides [...]
It isn't at all clear to me why reducing the costs of a challenge is a virtue; there would be much to be said for increasing the costs. And that needn't be based on service costs; it could just as eaily involve a bond of some kind, as a mechanism for deterring specious challeneges. But these observations, I'll hasten to add, are general, not specific to .biz.
Add to this the complete impotence of the STOP plan (how on earth does one prove bad faith registration, when there's no opportunity for the registrant to use the domain name to demonstrate that bad faith?), and it starts to look like Neulevel is fleecing TM owners in the name of "protection."
Well, the spotty results of UDRP rulings make it quite clear--beyond the risible incompetence and negligence of many panelists--that "bad faith" is completely inadequate category for examining the phenomena at hand. And whose fault is that? As to NeuLevel "fleecing" TM owners; my own view is that all but the most restricted understandings of TM constitute quite a fleecing in their own right, of the public weal. So now the TM service industry is conning its clients? Tragic.
|
|
|
[ 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
|