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

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    Did Jeff Davies find a legal loophole? | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 143 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    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.
    Re: Did Jeff Davies find a legal loophole?
    by Richard_Henderson on Wednesday December 25 2002, @04:56PM (#10714)
    User #3269 Info | http://www.atlarge.org/


    The Criteria for a successful .info Sunrise challenge as described at the time at the WIPO website did not involve any requirement for TMs on the part of the (successful) challenger.


    "2) What decisions can the Center take? The Center can: i.Decide in favor of the Challenger and, if the Challenger had requested transfer of the disputed domain name, order that the domain name be transferred to the Challenger; ii.Decide in favor of the Challenger and, if the Challenger had requested cancellation of the disputed domain name, order that the domain name be cancelled; iii.Decide in favor of the Respondent (i.e. the domain name registrant), and dismiss the Challenge. If the Center finds that the domain name was registered in compliance with the sunrise registration conditions, it will also dismiss any other or later filed Challenges (Paragraph 4(k)(iii)). According to Paragraph 10 (c) of the Rules, the Center is not required to state reasons for its decision."


    WIPO granted the names, without checking for any valid Trademarks from the challenger.


    Afilias then activated the successful challengers, regardless of trademarks.


    They simply transferred the domain name to the ‘successful’ challenger, whether they had a TM or not.


    This was extraordinary, because it contradicted their original provisions, but by then they had changed the Challenge landscape anyway by introducing their non-contractual Mass Challenge (which formed no part of any original contracts between registrants and registrars).



    For example, Afilias went ahead and unlocked and registered eg retirement.info in the name of Jeff Davies for an additional year… why? And they entered NO TM details in the whois for this name. Weren’t they legitimising the process to a considerable extent?


    And why didn’t Afilias challenge this and other names when it said it would challenge the remaining illegitimate Sunrise names, if they considered this name illegitimate?


    Part of the confusion arose from the way Afilias announced they would change the arrangements, and change them from the original arrangements in the Agreement.


    They simply indicated that AFTER the Sunrise challenge period, they would carry out a NEW challenge process against original Sunrise fraudsters. This was a new arrangement, outside the terms of their ICANN Agreement. There was no statement of intent to challenge successful WIPO challengers as well. Afilias had changed the procedures, without setting out rules for the new status quo. There was no update to the Agreement, and yet the terms of reference had changed. The challenge period would now be extended (for Afilias at least) beyond the original 26th Dec cut off date.


    Later, on or around November 26th, Afilias made a reference to closing these loopholes (after they’d been publicised on an ICANN Public Forum)… but by then people had re-registered Challenged names without any actual TMs, prior to Afilias’s new statement. Afilias had indeed sanctioned these new registrations, and unlocked the names.


    The new retrospective amendments came AFTER they'd sanctioned the registrations. It used to be found here -

    http://www.afilias.info/register/dispute_resolution/notice


    But Afilias have removed this page.


    ...
    "Additionally, Afilias’ revised Sunrise Challenge rules and policies will require all successful Sunrise Challengers who wish to register a disputed name will be required to produce proof of trademark ownership prior to transfer of the name"



    This amendment was announced AFTER the loopholes and re-registering of challenged non-TM names had gone ahead.


    Afilias' latest amendment also stated that although anyone could challenge a name before 26 December 2001, only genuine TM holders could register it in their own name or else they had to let it drop into the pool of names for Sunrise II. From now on, hardcopy proof would be required (that is, you could only register a name that you challenged if you could prove that you owned a TM for that name). This amendment was quite overdue of course, and the problem was that people had already been allowed to register non TM successful WIPO challenges up to the time of this Afilias amendment at the end of November 2001.


    Afilias’s amendment (coupled with their own registration of Challenged names without TMs before this) does raise the question: prior to the amendment, did a loophole exist, which Afilias went along with by registering names like these minus the TMs? WIPO also make no mention of the TM in the criteria they used to determine a successful challenge.


    As you can see, there were at least 3 stages: (a) the original Sunrise rules, which were the only ones in the actual Agreements; (b) the new scenario introduced by Afilias quite early in October, whereby the Challenge process would be altered to include their own challenges… during this time successful WIPO challengers without TMs were allowed to register Sunrise names in their own names and extend the registration period… Afilias let this happen; (c) the Afilias amendment around 26th November 2001 which said that from now on TM details would have to be provided before any more names were registered to non-TM challengers.


    In legal terms, I see two main issues : were Afilias, through lack of clarity, changes in procedures, and legitimising of claimants through registering challenged names without TMs, in some ways creating a loophole, as a result of which the Challengers obtained their domain?


    The second main issue is whether Afilias (and ICANN) had the legal or constitutional powers and right to apply Trademark law to domain names in this restrictive manner? Domain names are NOT Trademarks themselves, they are only strings of letters pointing to web-content. As such, was ICANN (supported by Afilias) overreaching its legal mandate?


    To me, the second issue was far more significant than the first. In relation to either of the issues, Afilias’s case is weakened by the documented evidence of rule breaking by their own Board and Executive, and Mr Davies – combining both issues – may claim that he was reclaiming the public’s right to claim domains without the interference of Trademark Holders. Afilias may yet be shown to have been substantially corrupt (witness the Lorenz case, for example) and this, coupled with interference in fair trade, and retrospective changes in procedure may be held to defend Mr Davies, who might claim that they were trying to inhibit his freedom to trade by introducing retrospective amendments which had not been composed at the time he entered into separate contract with his registrar.


    Mr Davies’ case probably rests considerably on (a) the documented unreasonableness of Afilias on a number of fronts over a period of time (in which ICANN too could be implicated); and (b) on his right to have free access to the DNS without undue and overbearing interference by ICANN or Afilias, or retrospective attempts to change the way things operated, or to first register a name for him, unlock it, extend his registration by one year… and then, arbitrarily lock it again, impeding his right (on a number of scores) to do business.


    These are my findings, having followed the .info case very closely, and I am prepared to testify on behalf of Mr Davies in court of law.


    It is regrettable that significant documents have been removed by Afilias from their website but I have taken the opportunity to cache thousands of webpages and files, using Offline Explorer etc. I also have a large collection of e-mails, including the documentation of the Lorenz case – which the Afilias CEO has always refused to discuss and has never denied.


    Richard Henderson


    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Did Jeff Davies find an legal loophole?
    by Anonymous on Wednesday December 25 2002, @06:27PM (#10715)
    Should substantial amounts of sunrise applications be discovered that indicated the applicants had no national TM registrations yet were accepted for sunrise registrations, it might be debated the registry willfully abdicated from it's own sunrise registration conditions.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Did Jeff Davies find a legal loophole?
    by Anonymous on Wednesday January 01 2003, @12:21PM (#10806)
    The ultimate process was an insult the users of the Internet and a special affront to those who believed enough in the process to legitimately apply. These allegations of abuse, if upheld, serve as concrete examples of the disdain held for the process. Allegations of abuse publically bemoaned by Afilias, yet in some instances appear tacitly faciliated. This is a scandal that ICANN, instead of circling the wagons, needs to address...and impartially address or risk it's own viability. If ICANN declines or defers, then the DOC or DOJ should get involved, lest what the general pattern suggests appear to be US Government endorsed through inaction. Frankly, a criminal investigation could be in the cards. - in plain sight
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]


    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