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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    UDRP Panel Issues Catch-22 Ruling On Reverse Domain Hi-Jacking | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 19 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: UDRP Panel Issues Catch-22 Ruling On Reverse D
    by hofjes on Wednesday January 30 2002, @12:01PM (#4766)
    User #60 Info
    The arbitrator is wrong. It should consider reverse domain name hijacking and opine accordingly.

    With that said, however, the rule regarding RDNH is lame. The only remedy the UDRP allows is domain name transfer. The respondent can never win damages or other relief. Accordingly, attempted RDNH is irrelevant. The only relevent factor is the respondent's bad faith. Sad but true.

    The arbitrator in this case recognizes that fact, and decided to unilaterally re-write the UDRP rule. The arbitrator is wrong. But, so is the UDRP.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: UDRP Panel Issues Catch-22 Ruling On Reverse D
    by Anonymous on Wednesday January 30 2002, @02:09PM (#4767)
    Perhaps the Panel felt this wasn't a clear RDNH case. The UDRP is good and much better than the alternative: letting squatters run wild on the Internet and ignore law. However, panels need to weigh each side of the issue, and if RDNH exists, come on out and say it.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: just disgrace themselves
    by Anonymous on Friday February 01 2002, @06:03AM (#4783)
    It's a shame. It's shame to have those in the panel.
    i personally prefer to have a "jury" to make the judgement
    rather than a couple of panelists. ICANN can use a company of volunteers. When a case is delivered to WIPO or another organization, ICANN ramdonly choose 6 to 10 people to make the judgement. When both parties present their arguements, I am sure ordinary people can make their judgement right. It does not need to take a DJ to make the job. Remember is not an arument of trademark rights. It's about the UDRP, which is simple as ABC to any person whose IQ is above 68.


    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • Re: ICANN by ANNODOMINI2000 Monday May 13 2002, @01:58AM
      • Re: ICANN by Anonymous Monday May 13 2002, @03:05AM


    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