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

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> I insist that the naming of States is a matter of public interest, and
> therefore registrars should ban the registration of domain names
comprising
> the names of States, unless registration is requested by the State
> concerned.
>

Intellectual Property types tend to rely on this type of logic as well. I've
never understood (nor been adequately convinced) how prior use in a
completely unrelated area should provide one the benefit of complete
protection for all future applications.

toronto.info, newzealand.biz - its all the same - property rights don't
reasonably map to domain names - the "landrush attitude" remains the
fairest.


                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow



----- Original Message -----
From: "Rodrigo Orenday Serrato" <rorenday@banxico.org.mx>
To: "'Andy Gardner'" <andy@navigator.co.nz>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 1:15 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz


> I beg to differ, Andrew. It is my opinion that  New Zealand did win back
its
> name on .biz. An approach like yours only favors land-rush attitudes
towards
> domain name registration and cybersquatting. Domain name registration
should
> begin by acknowledging that certain exclusive rights over other idetifiers
> and distinctive signs preceeded its inception.
>
> I insist that the naming of States is a matter of public interest, and
> therefore registrars should ban the registration of domain names
comprising
> the names of States, unless registration is requested by the State
> concerned.
>
> Altough Professor Froomkin commented earlier this week that there is no
> basis in international public law for the foregoing, I beleive that there
> is, specifically in international commity and custom. Each State is
entitled
> to choose the form of its designation, same which may not be used
otherwise
> by anyone else, irrepective of the function that eacg gTLD is supposed to
> serve.
>
> Atentamente, Regards
> Rodrigo Orenday Serratos
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]En nombre de Andy
> Gardner
> Enviado el: Jueves, 10 de Octubre de 2002 10:57 AM
> Para: ga@dnso.org
> Asunto: Re: [ga] Interesting WIPO ruling re: NewZealand.biz
>
>
> 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=techno
> logy&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
>
> --
> 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