Things are happening
Jim Kingdon
First, there have been about half a dozen decisions under the uniform
dispute resolution policy. There is a detailed list in legalese at
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/index.html but does anyone
have a summarized version? Based on a quick glance, they seemed to be
applying the policy accurately and (perhaps more importantly) quickly.
Next, the ICANN member at large process rumbles on. No point in going
through the whole thing again about what we think of ICANN, but just
in case people hadn't noticed. This is full of the usual ICANN
bureaucracy and such - http://members.icann.org/
Richard J. Sexton
Jim Kingdon <kin...@panix.com> wrote:
>OK, while this group sleeps, the world changes.
>
>First, there have been about half a dozen decisions under the uniform
>dispute resolution policy. There is a detailed list in legalese at
>http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/index.html but does anyone
>have a summarized version? Based on a quick glance, they seemed to be
>applying the policy accurately and (perhaps more importantly) quickly.
3 decisions have been made. Base don that Rober6ts says it's a great success.
Of thes eone of them is a gros violation of domain name holders rights
and will go to court as test case if we canfind a pro bono lawyer.
>Next, the ICANN member at large process rumbles on. No point in going
>through the whole thing again about what we think of ICANN, but just
>in case people hadn't noticed. This is full of the usual ICANN
>bureaucracy and such - http://members.icann.org/
You don't get to vote. It is, like everything else in ICANN, a crock.
--
Richard Sexton | ric...@tangled.web | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.net http://www.mbz.org http://www.dnso.com
Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, 70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD +1 (613) 473-1719
Jim Kingdon
Hmm, I count 6:
worldwrestlingfederation.com
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/d99-0001.html
was on the verge of settling but WIPO decided the case on the theory
that they are supposed to decide quickly
americanvintage.com
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/d2000-0004.html
domain owner did not respond
stelladoro.com
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/d2000-0012.html
domain owner is a cybersquatter
telstra.org
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/d2000-0003.html
domain owner did not respond
musicweb.com
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/d00-0001.html
domain owner says "I have no relation to this domain whatsoever. The
listing of me as the administrative contact is in error."
wheatthins.com et al
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/d2000-0032.html
domain owner is a cybersquatter
Yeah, obviously I have too much time on my hands to make this list
:-).
> Of these one of them is a gross violation of domain name holders
> rights and will go to court as test case if we can find a pro bono
> lawyer.
Ah yes, this is why I posted here, I know that I won't get the full
story from the official sites (http://www.dnspolicy.com/ seems to be
down at least at the moment).
Of course, now I get to guess which one is the gross violation. I'd
kind of guess worldwrestlingfederation.com but I could easily be wrong
on that one.
Richard J. Sexton
Oops. Good point.
>
> worldwrestlingfederation.com
> http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/d99-0001.html
> was on the verge of settling but WIPO decided the case on the theory
> that they are supposed to decide quickly
Wipos had the press release ready to anounce they'd done this
before they actually decided it. In any court in the world
if it looks like there is any chance the litigants can settle
they are afforded the oppertunity to do so. Wipo wanted the
PR for this.
> americanvintage.com
> http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/d2000-0004.html
> domain owner did not respond
This the mistake. Some guy with an antiques store has the name.
American Vintage crackers sent him a cease and desist (they
paid a lawyer to bark at him) and he told them to get lost the
name wasn't for sale (not exaclty a squatter), so they pled
UDRP.
Silly store owner didn't respond. All he had to do was way "I
have a right to this name" and he would have won. But it
appears he didn't know this and faced with something as
scary sounding as the World Interllectual Property Organization
breathing down his ass he folded. He has 10 days to file
a court suit.
The guy who decided this is actually a fairly cluefull TM lawyer
who knows better. Thers is some issue about a default judgement
not being decided in this case the way it normally is in court
(tht I don't understand fully).
The other point, that's really distubring is, the arbitor
gets $750 for this (WIPO gets the other $250).
Now, figire $250-$350/hr for a lawyer.
How many hours do you think it takes to reserch this
and write a judgement? Do you want the fate of your
domain to rest on 2-3 hours of a lawyrs time?
Plus, there is ZERO incentive for an arbitor to
decide anythiong other than "I find for the complainant";
there is no penalty for deciding incorrectly, there is
no penalty for a frivolous UDRP complaint. Given
arbitors are doing this to make money and complainants
have lots of if and domain owners don't, why or how
would an arbitor take the time to research it properly
and ever find for the complainee? There's no incentive
to be reasonable here. The arbitor that keeps finding
for the complainant will keep getting more clients.
The other one to watch is the dogs.com duispute. That
one is a crock of shit, too.
Jim Kingdon
> have a right to this name" and he would have won. But it
> appears he didn't know this and faced with something as
> scary sounding as the World Interllectual Property Organization
> breathing down his ass he folded.
Ouch. This could be a problem with courts too. One thing I liked on
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/links.htm was the "Registrars who are
informing their registrants about us" section. While better
procedures might help, having domain owners band together and help
each other is really the only way to address this problem.
> Thers is some issue about a default judgement not being decided in
> this case the way it normally is in court (tht I don't understand
> fully).
Hmm, interesting. Because in the americanvintage.com case, WIPO
applied principles of US law because both complainant and respondent
were in the US. However, "US law" does not imply "US procedures"
(although I'd have to say the whole thing is pretty vague and probably
not intended to be that formal).
> The arbitor that keeps finding for the complainant will keep getting
> more clients.
Well, WIPO chooses who the arbitors are, not the complainants (unless
it is a 3 person panel, in which case respondent and complainant both
pick). There certainly is a risk that bodies like WIPO will want to
increase their caseload, though, so I'm not saying that there is no
danger here. Just that I'm not sure we are seeing this problem yet.
> The other one to watch is the dogs.com duispute. That
> one is a crock of shit, too.
Well, is the respondent going to file a response? I'll pull up my
lawn chair and popcorn as good as the next, but it is more fun if the
parties are going to actually duke it out ;-).