RE: [wg-b] An idea?

[Andrew Dalgleish <andrewd@axonet.com.au>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Michael D. Palage [SMTP:mpalage@infonetworks.com]
> Sent:	Monday, May 15, 2000 02:11
> To:	Wg-B@Dnso. Org
> Subject:	[wg-b] An idea?
> 
> In the process of preparing Working Group B's Final Report to the
> Names
> Counsel this weekend, I was reading over all of the comments that were
> submitted during the comment period. And the following idea came to me
> during a brain storming session with another attorney. I think it
> offers an
> interesting idea that was never considered.  I would like to hear any
> "constructive" feedback that people have on this idea.
> 
> Temporarily Modified UDRP During the Rollout of a New Top-Level Domain
> Name
> 
> Any new top-level domain would be added to the root with no
> preferential
> pre-registration rights.
[Andrew Dalgleish]  
So far, this idea looks ok.

>  However, in those top-level domains where
> additional trademark protection would be deemed necessary to thwart
> abusive
> bad faith registration, a modified UDRP would apply for a limited time
> period, say 30 to 60 days.
[Andrew Dalgleish]  
Who does the deeming?
This is not looking good.

>  During this start up phrase (30 to 60 days), any
> third party (Complainant) challenging a domain name registration in
> this new
> top level domain would contact a dispute provider and deposit the
> required
> fee (approximately $750 under the current provider rules).
[Andrew Dalgleish]  
(There seems to be an abundance of "dispute providers" around here...
:-)


>  The dispute
> provider would then contact the domain name registrant and inquire if
> they
> wish to respond to the third party challenge. (Note: A significant
> number of
> UDRP are default proceeding where the domain name registrant never
> replied).
> If the domain name registrant wishes to respond to the challenge they
> would
> be required to deposit the same required fee as deposited by the
> Complainant.
[Andrew Dalgleish]  
And here is where the wheels fall off.

IANAL, but even I can see through this charade.

I see no mention of any limits on the number of challenges.
Does this mean the registrant needs to post a fee to respond to each and
every challenge?
A large corporation could post a challenge under the name of 100's of
sub-corporations.

This effectively means domain name registration is only for the rich.

Sir, this is a *VERY* bad idea.

(Rest of Micheal's post trimmed.)

Regards,
Andrew Dalgleish