But I think this argument is on track. Both points of view are
right on the mark and deserving of consideration.
I do not want blanket restriction, but I appreciate the effort that
goes into branding a name and the right of a peoples to sovereignty.
But;
Take "Columbia". What? records, province, street, country, flower,
city? Now expand into multi tier considerations of ccTLDs (of which
I think dotCOM is an alternative for the USA). Now I know we do not
like to admit that free enterprise is righteous but a squatter with foresight
has a claim also.
So when we say "State" are we referring to a Barcelona concept or a
ccTLD concept?
Or are we referring to the "State" of economics and accessibility,
reliability and security?
We here would do well to establish International Standards. And
allocation of IP addresses which are the platform for such useages should
be an integral part of such discussion.
I beg to differ, Andrew. It is my opinion that
New Zealand did win back its
name on .biz. An approach like yours only favors land-rush attitudes
towards
domain name registration and cybersquatting. Domain name registration
should
begin by acknowledging that certain exclusive rights over other idetifiers
and distinctive signs preceeded its inception.
I insist that the naming of States is a matter of public interest, and
therefore registrars should ban the registration of domain names comprising
the names of States, unless registration is requested by the State
concerned.
Altough Professor Froomkin commented earlier this week that there is
no
basis in international public law for the foregoing, I beleive that
there
is, specifically in international commity and custom. Each State is
entitled
to choose the form of its designation, same which may not be used otherwise
by anyone else, irrepective of the function that eacg gTLD is supposed
to
serve.
Atentamente, Regards
Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
-----Mensaje original-----
De: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]En
nombre de Andy
Gardner
Enviado el: Jueves, 10 de Octubre de 2002 10:57 AM
Para: ga@dnso.org
Asunto: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz
At 7:13 PM +1300 10/10/02, DPF wrote:
>It appears from inquiries I have made locally that the application
was
>not made by the NZ Government but by Trade New Zealand - a government
>owned organisation, presumably with the consent of their Minister
as
>his name was used. Other sections of the Government with an
interest
>in these things were not in the loop on this.
>
>In fact official NZ government policy on the issue of country names
as
>domain names is that they should not be precluded. This can
be found
>in the submission at
>http://ecommerce.wipo.int/domains/sct/comments/0009.html.
>
Interesting.
So who do we need to contact in the govt hierachy to get the UDRP for
newzealand.com withdrawn?
Check out the following news item:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=2998418&thesection=techno
logy&thesubsection=general
Quoting:
"The Government has won back the rights to the newzealand.biz internet
domain name"
Firstly, you can't say "won back" when they never had the rights in
the
first place, so journalist Adam Gifford needs to get A CLUE. And someone
can forward that message onto him from me if they like.
Secondly, it sounds like "the Government" had no idea this was going
on
(thanks to the secrecy surrounding the UDRP process in general - you
don't
know who filed a case until it's all over) and the apparent wish of
the
complainant to not publish the results.
So Adam Gifford really needs to re-hash his story, and perhap do some
research this time, instead of just repeating quotes from "the Government".
Thirdly:
"Mackenzie said the cost of getting back the name was minimal."
Mackenzie/Trade NZ/"the Government" didn't "get back the name". They
STOLE
it.
Sheesh.
No points for guessing what the outcome of
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0754.html
will
be, now that these crooks have got some precedence behind them.
Note to those that don't know how the UDRP process REALLY works: What
you
read in the final "decision" isn't always the full story. The "panel"
frequently leaves out anything (usually submitted by the defendant)
that
doesn't fit the outcome they desire. It's pretty much a SCAM being
operated
here.
--
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the
UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
--
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@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