Re: [ga] OECD Report

[Dan Steinberg <synthesis@videotron.ca>]

Danny, 

The thing is, a determination of 'cybersquatting' is really something no
one can make in advance. Its a question of facts on each individaul
case.  So I question any conclusions made from 'volume of registration
fees'. There is a reason the system has no incentive for diligence. As I
have reminded people since 1995, only the courts have the right to act
as courts. Any other actors (registries, registrars, resellers, etc.)
are simply not courts and have no business making judgement as to
whether any particular registration constitutes 'cybersquatting'
(acutally the UDRP does not even use the term cybersquatting).

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> 
> Marilyn,
> 
> I read with interest the OECD report
> http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00027000/M00027316.pdf that you posted to the WHOIS
> list, especially this particular conclusion:
> 
> << The record in this case demonstrates that the Registrars's interest is to
> keep the cybersquatters as client for the volume of registration fees they
> generate and to avoid helping the victim -- which might lead the client to
> switch to a more protective registrar.  The system provides no incentive for
> the Registrar to exercise any degree of diligence or to help reduce the
> victim's period of losses or recovery costs, even when its contract gives it
> every ability to do so. >>
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html