Re: [ga] UDRP Questionnaire

[Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>]

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> I may miss the point, but to me a domain name is exactly what defined in the
> document referenced by Sandy, i.e. a mnemonic way to reach a "thing" that
> has an Internet address.
>
> This is why they have been created, anyway

And Sotiris Sotiropoulos replied:

> So if MADONNA.COM is "a mnemonic way to reach a "thing" that has an Internet
> address" why does the popstar have some kind of claim to ownership of the
> domain?  Or how about the BARCELONA.COM domain?  I'm sorry Roberto, but your
> response is a little too simplistic, almost naive.  If I were to ask you what
> "gold" was would you tell me it was just a yellow metal?

As far as the software is concerned, domain names are just strings meeting
a set of rules defined in the RFC I cited. 

For the user, they are usually mnemonic. Nothing technically prevents using,
say, xwqztttmnuhofxy.net, but an individual or business might want a name
people can remember.

Where the complications come in is that the strings in domain names may
include names for which others claim rights. madonna.com uses a name which
a pop star and the Orthodox or Roman Catholic churches might claim rights
to.

You might object if I registered sotiris.sotiropolis.name. What if I
register gnossos.papadopolous.name? A fictional character presumably
cannot object, and the author is dead, but does the publisher or the
author's widow have something to say?

For this, the problem is not defining "domain name" as you seem to
think. We have a perfectly adequate definition. What we lack is a
fair and effective procedure for handling the conflicts that arise.
UDRP was supposed to be that, but it seems to be failing miserably.

I think there are two obvious things we could fix in UDRP.

First, it is binding on the domain name holder (because the registrars
will enforce the decisions and their contracts include the UDRP) but
not on the complainant. Make it binding on the complainant, adding
suitable legal language to the complaint form.

Second, make it utterly clear that non-conflicting use is fine. For
example, the bodacioustatas.com case should have been laughed out of
court, and the only attack on ibm-sucks.org that a UDRP panel should
even listen to would be one from a critic complaining that IBM had
registered it to squelch criticism. That, they should grant instantly.
--
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