DNRC files complaint with ICANN
Richard J. Sexton
HERNDON, October 7 /PRNewswire/ -- The Domain Name Rights Coalition
(DNRC), an organization dedicated to protecting the interests of
entrepreneurs, small business owners and individuals in domain name
issues, today filed a formal complaint with ICANN on their proposed
Uniform Dispute Policy (UDP).
"We object to any uniform dispute policy, especially one that skews
the playing field towards large trademark holders" said Mikki Barry,
president of the DNRC. "Under this proposal, only the domain name
holders are contractually obligated to follow the rules, while
trademark holders continue to have their traditional options available.
This not only inhibits competition, but it gives special rights to
trademark holders that do not exist in any other medium."
The DNRC also protested the use of a small drafting committee, and
the way that suggestions were filtered through an ICANN attorney. It
was yet another example of ICANN circumventing the White Paper's call
for bottom-up, consensus processes.
In addition, the DNRC noted how the UDP goes well beyond the mandate
of curtailing cybersquatting and reverse domain name hijacking. Reverse
domain name hijacking is hardly mentioned in either the rules or the UDP,
and most of the other provisions go well beyond the stated purpose of
the UDP.
These objections join a long list of other complaints against ICANN,
including the expansion of their mandate from "technical management" to
policy issues that will likely impact civil liberties world-wide, ICANN
ignoring its own rules and by-laws, and ICANN's refusal to give
individuals any say at the ICANN table.
The Domain Name Rights Coalition was formed in 1996, and has worked
for national and international policies which are fair and equitable
to all users of the Internet ever since. It has also worked to protect
the Internet as a global medium of communication and free speech, and
it is well known for its vigilant fight against the Domain Name Dispute
Policy of Network Solutions, Inc. and similar policies recommended by
the World Intellectual Property Organization.
CONTACT: Mikki Barry
www.domain-name.org
703-925-0282
SOURCE: Fenello.com, Inc.
www.fenello.com
770-392-9480
--
Richard Sexton | ric...@tangled.web | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.net http://www.mbz.org http://lists.aquaria.net
Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, 70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD +1 (613) 473-1719
Jim Kingdon
> Dispute Policy (UDP).
Sorry, what does "formal complaint" mean? I haven't followed the
byzantine procedures of ICANN enough to even ask the question very
clearly, but is this directed at the DNSO, the Board, the committee
which watches over the board (the name of which I forget, independent
something), or who? Was this filed as a public comment at
http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp.htm - I see something there which says
"Mikki Barry <oob...@netpolicy.com>" but the web archiver thingie
seems to be broken - it shows a different comment. Perhaps
www.domain-name.org could be updated (I didn't see anything
particularly recent there - again I could have missed it).
Those archives do have a number of interesting comments people have
filed, though, here are a few.
Carl Oppedahl:
http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/comment-udrp/current/msg00021.html
"No new long-term mechanism is needed for the transitionary and
diminishing problem of cybersquatting"
Electronic Frontier Foundation:
http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/comment-udrp/current/msg00015.html
"Let me start by stating, again, that EFF does not believe the
resolution of trademark disputes is appropriately before ICANN in the
first place."
John Gilmore:
http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/comment-udrp/current/msg00030.html
http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/comment-udrp/current/msg00031.html
"We may yet get them to a state where free speech is fully protected,
where abusive corporations get just as short a shrift as abusive
individuals, and where people are only subjected to rules which they
have notice of and agreement with."