Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz

[Andy Gardner <andy@navigator.co.nz>]

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newzealand.com withdrawn?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=technology&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