Re: UDRP bad decisions (RE: [ga] Candidate positions on UDRP)

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

The creation of a working group to address this seems like a good idea
to me.  In the working group B discussions, there seemed to be
recognition that there were important limitations on the trademark
owners rights in the use of a string in a domain.  Many of the panel
members show very little recognition of this.  I am somewhat optimistic
that we could have agreement on some important points, or at least,
frame the issues better.   If ICANN is going to have a policy on
trademarks and domains (and it does with the UDRP policy), it might as
well be a good one. 

 Jamie



Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
> Jamie,
> 
> I just replied to a similar post on NonCom arguing that maybe the
> expertise to provide examples and criteria is in the DNSO.
> Maybe the way to go is a WG to prepare recommandations to be forwarded
> to ICANN.
> 
> Maybe this is also a chance for DNSO to get propositive again ;>).
> 
> Regards
> Roberto
> 
> >On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> >> I think one of the missing pieces in the UDRP ruleset is a procedure
> for
> >> the independent review of dispute resolution providers' track record,
>  and
> >> the resulting removal of a resolution service provider from ICANN's
> list if
> >> the track record is not found satisfactory.
> >>
> >
> >    ICANN's policy statement on the UDRP *should* be more clear.  It
> >should give examples of cases where domains are *not* confusingly
> >similar, it should tell panels that criticism, parody and rights to
> >associate are legitimate uses of a domain, that different TLDs can give
> 
> >enough distinction to domains that they need not only look at the 2LD,
> >and they should do something about the fact that panels often ignore
> the
> >bad faith criteria.
> >
> >   Also, and this is going a bit further, ICANN's policy statement on
> >the UDRP should make it clear that merely having a service mark will
> not
> >give a firm the right to stop anyone else from using the same string in
> 
> >a domain name, and give several examples to illustrate this.
> >
> >   If ICANN did all of this and probably some more, it could make the
> >UDRP something that the Internet community would support, because it
> >would be percieved as more fair and more balanced than it is now.
> >
> >   The trademark community should be satisfied with a UDRP that limits
> >itself more than it does now, and recognizes the public's legitimate
> >rights to use words that have been subject to a trade mark somewhere.
> 
> >
> >  Jamie
> >
> >=============================================
> >James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
> >P.O. Box 19367        | http://www.cptech.org
> >Washington, DC 20036  | love@cptech.org
> >Voice 202/387-8030    | Fax 202/234-5176
> >=============================================
> >
> >--
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >

-- 
James Love  mailto:love@cptech.org http://www.cptech.org
Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
voice 1.202.387.8030  fax  1.202.234.5176
--
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