Re: [wg-review] Karl's assigned objective. - offtopic a little

[Robin Miller <robin@minervan.com>]

Bret Busby wrote:

> 
> Hello, Cindy.
> 
> I don't know about me, but you certainly seem to be having fun :)
> 
> Regarding one of the issues to which you referred, about the domain name
> holders having votes, and, whether it should be one vote, per domain
> name, etc; you will probably, by now, have seen my message, where I
> objected to domain name holders, or, owners, or whatever (a rose by any
> other name, ...), being accorded special privileges, and, a class of
> their own, as I had been cheated out of a domain name, which a registrar
> had sold to a pirate. Now, if a pirate has a hundred, or, a thousand,
> domain names, that it is holding for ransom, depending on which model is
> being used, the pirate could have a vote for each domain name, that it
> is holding for ransom, thus compounding its wrongs.

That's nice, we got sued to death over a gTLD that happened to be the initials
of my fiance's name. A large television station had a trademark on it, and they
were determined to be more important than the little guy that had only been
using his initials as a writer for oh... 20 years. For 20 years no problem,
until he had the domain name... He wasn't taking their domain from them, they
had a domain name on the ccTLD, the tv station can only seen and understood in
German speaking countries. They do not have a LICENSE on their movies to
broadcast in English, nor do they make unique English-language programming. Our
webpage was in German and English, English is necessary as some of our clients
are Japanese and American and cannot understand German. Nor would they be able
to view that TV station. We even had a link to the station on the page and
recommended their jobsearch on a different site, and in a whole year we only
had one person that got confused, and that person didn't speak German or
English... was a Turkish guy. They said we were trying to use the link to claim
association, more lies they told about us... the link was there so there could
be no confusion. They lied about my fiance's business practices too, but our
lawyer said we would be forever trying to sue them for defamation...

Not only did the tv station want his org domain, but they sued and got an
injunction against the dot.com too, from an 80 year old investment bank who is
surely older than them and unrelated to their business. Now they threaten us
when he reserves his name with his initials but with his last name on it, they
claim that even with his last name its confusing, that someone would confuse a
tech writer with a tv station is absolute trash... They just want him off the
net and bankrupt him enough to shut him up. And there are several corps here
that have his last name trademarked, I guess that will be next to be sued
over... and the tv station suggesed a name that we should take would get us in
conflict with another entity that has been successful suing everyone here over
the d- string ... I only wonder if they did that on purpose.

Some people horde domain names in great quantity, and some corporations
register trademarks in great quantity and in lines of business that are not
even related to what they really do. Like, does a television station really
need a trademark for washing powder? Or do they really compete against a writer
making pr and technical papers for a very narrow section of the tech and
electronics industry? Is a television station in competition with a graphic
artist doing webdesign and illustration? Or are they really competing against a
Swiss investment bank? No...

I do understand your problem - the UDRP was surely not set up to help small
business or individual registrants - its set up to keep the registries out of
court. But please do not deny me the opportunity to have my say against the big
TM interests who have helped set up rules and laws that have been used as a
club against average people like me, to help prevent and/or end my
participation on the Net. They have stretched TM law way out of proportion...
its only really stretched in favour of the big boys.

Not everyone here is a 'domain name pirate'. And many large TM interests fit
the description of 'domain name thug' as well. As Chris said, either the TM's
cannot have a constituency or we must have an IDNH constituency... There is a
special class for the TM guys already - it just doesn't help you as its not
aimed to protect the little guy, its for the 'elite' TMs - they are what ICANN
fears, they can take down a registry or ICANN itself for that matter. I
understand that fear as we have had to fight it head on too and I know the
damage they can do... But ICANN has to realise that we individuals are
stakeholders, we represent a diverse population of various interests, and we
matter too.

this whole UDRP unfairness is because ICANN and the Registry hasn't thought
about anyone but themselves. They've left the netizens out of the decision
making process. Netizens like me and netizens like you. Now hopefully we can
get back in the process, have our concerns heard and something done about them.

all the best, Robin
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html