Re: [ga] Re: .BIZ RDRP Disputes

["John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <john@johnberryhill.com>]

> In the RDRP policy there is no provision which
>requires the Complainant to hold an identical or a
>confusing similar trademark to request a transfer of a disputed domain name.

Welcome to the "big joke" of the RDRP, and the reason why you do not see many
RDRP filings (unless combined with a UDRP).

The RDRP says that the panel can order transfer or cancellation.  There are
no criteria provided in the RDRP for one remedy or the other.  Clearly, it
would seem stupid to entitle anyone to "transfer" merely because they were
the first one to complain that a registrant was not following the
registration restrictions on .biz names (i.e. you can't sell them, absent
sale of an associated business).  If that were the case, then the RDRP would
be a wonderful vehicle for setting up "straw disputes" wherein a complainant
(who is actually a cybersquatter) cooperates with a respondent in order to
have the respondent violate the RDRP, then file a complaint, and then obtain
a transfer that would cloak the subsequent registration in a veneer of
legitimacy.

Clearly as well, the idea of paying for an RDRP proceeding merely to obtain
cancellation of a domain name is.... stupid... since the only practical
effect is to make the domain name available to anyone who is quick enough to
grab it when it is cancelled.

The RDRP was put into the .biz proposal as mere eyewash to suggest that .biz
names would be free of speculation.  Anyone who thinks about the RDRP for
more than a few minutes will recognize what a silly thing it is.



--
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