Re: [ga] ICANN benefits

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 02:04:44PM -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
> 
> If the adjudicators cannot get this right on their own -- and there seems to
> be considerable evidence that at least they haven't to date -- then methinks
> we need some explicit guidance added to the UDRP.
> 
> In particular:
> 
> A satire domain -- say, ibm-sucks.com or Incomplete-But-Marketable.net --
> is entirely legitimate.

One of the fundamental problem in that notion, however, is that "satire"
is an intrinsically subjective judgement.  The UDRP is an arbitration
proceeding, not a court; the rules of procedure are much simpler, and
the safeguards are not as elaborate. 

> The only URDP case that should even be considered
> against such domains

The problem is not so much protecting such domains; the problem is
defining them. 

> Also, multiple non-conflicting uses -- as in Sun Oil and Sun Microsystems,
> both valid trademarks in at least the US -- should be explicitly allowed.

It is.

> The burden of proof for alleged conflict is on the complainant.

It is.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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