Re: [wg-review] RE: Domains and other matters

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

100% Full Agreement.

I would add that the UDRP has actually no legal value since as
everybody knows it is a self contained arbitration procedure,
and - fully rightly - initially defines the meaning of the non common
words which maybe used in the frame of this arbitration procedure.

Unfortunately the word "domain name" is not defined, as if it was
a word of common knowledge what it is obviously not. There is no
need to poll the world to ascertain this, but only to read the texts
of the UDRP and the decisions made by the panel to see that
these texts, very often in the same text, give different meanings
to the locution "domain name". For that reason any UDRP
decision may be taken to Courts (but you need money and
time) with fair chances of success. Anywhere in the world
including inthe USA where the Anticybersqatting Act does give
a definition but circular (roughly "what the domain name
registrars register").

This is why it is urgent to give a real legal basis to all this
in trying to echnico-legally undrstand what a domain name is
withthe help of the top international experts and have it
acknowledged by legislations in the leading countries.

UDRPs and current laws offer absolutely no protection on a
medium range term neither to the DN nor to the TM holder. The
responsibility rests with the DNSO for not having firest coined
out an acceptable definition and kept working of this very
complex issue. It is the key of all the problems faced by the
DNSO. When you do not know what you talk about and what
is uniting you, you have problems in understanding each others,
to stay together and to reach a consensus on anything.

Jefsey





On 11:25 15/01/01, Dassa said:
>|>-----Original Message-----
>|>From: Sotiropoulos [mailto:sotiris@hermesnetwork.com]
>|>Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 10:08 PM
>|>To: dassa@dhs.org; wg-review@dnso.org
>|>Subject: Domains and other matters
>
>Sotiris
>
>|>What about in cases like UDRP disputes? somebody is very
>|>clearly claiming "ownership" in those cases...
>
>They are claiming ownership of trademarks, business registrations etc
>and that this entitles them to a claim on the right to use a domain
>name.  If you see anything in the UDRP claims and resolutions that
>defines ownership of a domain, I would be very happy for you to point
>it out to me.
>
>|>You know, we may have met... friends call me Sam.  But we may
>|>also not have met in person either.
>|>
>|>>Dassa --
>|>
>|>"Dassa" ... and the rest of your name would be? (still
>|>thinking i know you)
>
>We could certainly have run into each other online.
>
>Darryl (Dassa) Lynch
>Australian
>Holder of a number of domain names, personally and in conjunction with
>DHS International.
>Posting here as an individual.
>Member of various organizations, both Internet related and otherwise.
>
>--
>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

--
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