Re: [ga] UDRP -- View from The Register

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Sandy,
the UDRP is flawed by nature because it tries to solve a domain name
problem with a trade mark solution. It just cannot work. t is like fixing
a screw with a hammer.

They use a trick: they do not say what is the user name, so they
do not look ridiculous. But they are never the less.

A domain name is just what it is: a continuation in cyberspace of
geographical or postal names. It names an IP location as a
geographical name names an NW location or a postal address
defines a set of mailboxes.

What may happen to geographical name when they are confusing?
People chose another one... Usually not Judges nor Govs...

The only acceptable solution is: the plaintif proposes a moke-up of
the site he plans, he publicly explains why he thinks people will
prefer his site rather than the existing one at the disputed name.
1000 randomly chosen international users vote. If the plaintif gets
2/3 in his favor, he wins. In every country this is named a jury. It
is considered as more a sophisticated system than a single
arbitrator. In market studies it is also named a poll, and it gives
a better image of what the market thinks than jusking one person.

TM have nothing to do in there.  They are just involved because
when scarcity is organized you need a lottery to decide who will
get it. AmerICANN proposes the WIPO lottery as an interim
solution. It will disapear when there is few hundred TLDs more.
UNless they make Real Name the unique TLD which counts: no
TLD... This is why they do not want many TLD which would
conlict with their interests...

Jefsey.





On 04:07 13/07/01, Sandy Harris said:
>DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> >
> > Why ICANN's domain dispute rules are flawed: Part I
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/20304.html
> >
> > Why ICANN's domain dispute rules are flawed: Part II
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/20305.html
>
>Thanks a lot for posting this.
>
>I'd say it could serve as an agenda for the UDRP review task
>force. I do not mean a list of points for discussion; I see
>it as a list of broken things to be fixed.
>
>The only thing I can think of offheand that is missing is the
>symmetry problem. UDRP is binding on the domain holder, since
>the registrars will enforce it. Methinks it must also be
>binding on the complainant.
>--
>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