Slashdot Log In
Domain Name Dispute Process Called Into Question
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sat Mar 09, 2002 01:27 PM
from the is-anyone-shocked-by-this? dept.
from the is-anyone-shocked-by-this? dept.
Chemist109 writes "The Register has an article about a study of the domain name dispute resolution process. The study accuses domain arbitrators of "actively choosing judges who favoured complainants (trademark holders)." Since the complainant in a domain dispute is allowed to choose where a case is heard, this ensures the arbitrators continued revenue."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Domain Name Dispute Process Called Into Question
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 88 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I think that (Score:2, Insightful)
Stupid ads
Why do they have to be so big?
Oh well.
yeah, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Domain names, always unfair (Score:1, Funny)
The article talks about paperwork?! Why YESSSSSSS! (Score:5, Informative)
***********
Thank you for contacting VeriSign.
Your fax request was received, however, we have noticed the following problems. The sections marked by an "X" are missing information or have been incorrectly completed. Please make the necessary corrections and resubmit your request.
*The authorization letter should be on the organization's letterhead as stated in our database.
*The authorization letter did not reference a NIC-tracking number and/or a domain name. An example of a NIC-tracking
number is NIC000414.1a2d.
*The authorization letter referenced a NIC-tracking number that is either invalid or incorrect. Please provide the
appropriate NIC-tracking number for your modification request. An example of a NIC-tracking number is NIC000414.1a2d.
*There was not a template attached to the tracking number.
*The authorization letter did not contain a statement of authorization.
*The authorization letter was not signed.
*The authorization letter was not accompanied by a signature and title of an individual with the authorization to legally bind the registrant. This authority is generally held by an officer of the company, or someone with one of the following titles: Owner, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operations Officer, President, Senior Vice President, Vice President, Director, General Manager, General Partner, Managing Director, Sole Proprietor, Treasurer.
*The authorization letter was not accompanied by proof of the registrant's identity, such as a copy of a driver's license, passport, military ID, university ID, etc. Please be sure to enlarge and lighten your photo-copy so that your transmission will be legible.
*The authorization letter was not accompanied by proof of the registrant's address, such as a copy of a utility bill or phone bill that establishes his/her address as stated in our database.
*The fax is missing pages or is illegible.
Due to numerous attempts to corrupt files of domain records by unauthorized persons, if any of the above items is missing the faxed request will not be processed. We regret the inconvenience, however, it is necessary to protect the integrity of our clients' registrations.
Please be sure to re-send your fax to 703-326-7000 with the following information:
a) If the domain is registered to a company, it must be on company letterhead.
b) If the request is to update a contact record or if it is for a domain that is owned by a person , a photo-copy of a state issued ID or passport. Please be sure to enlarge and lighten your photo-copy so that your transmission will be legible.
c) Tracking # of your original email request to our hostmaster---see above
d) Signature and Title of Company Officer or Contact who can take legal responsibility.
e) Phone number and email address.
Best regards,
Kwame Am
VeriSign, Inc.
http://www.networksolutions.com
**********
Whatever you do
Google formalize search (Score:4, Interesting)
Reversing cause and effect? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not suggesting that the process it truly fair. Like just about everything else these days, I'm sure the playing field is slanted heavily in favor of commercial interests with deep pockets. I just don't think there's enough information here to prove bias.
The study would be more meaningful if it focused on complaints where the defendant had a plausible justification for keeping a domain. I don't know how you can do this objectively. If you make subjective decisions about which complaints are included, it would color statistical analysis of the data.
At a minimum, I'd like to drop the no-brainers before tallying results. It's pretty obvious to me that Pepsico should have the rights to pepsi.com, pepsicola.com, and pepsico.com. It's a unique name, it shouldn't be a surprise that the judges would rule in Pepsi's favor. I'd like to know how they rule on names like pepsi-sucks.com or pepsi-lovers.com, and on names that could legitimately belong to a number of entities, for example abc.com or johnson.com.
Anyone have better information?
Re:Reversing cause and effect? (Score:4, Insightful)
Title? (Score:2, Flamebait)
I was under the impression that this dispute has been ongoing for quite a long while. The whole process is inherently flawed and geared to please corporations (how many domains held by individuals have been seized by corporations?) and is a matter of controversy. Silly
Money (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing is, even if the process was changed to favour the other side of the argument, it would still be biased and a problem would still exist.
I think that this is a strong reason for having a real 'cyber-court' so that technology and internet issues can get judged without having to worry about judges and juries who don't understand technology or the issues. I mean, the current law (and media) system knows its way around fraud/murder/typical crimes cases very well, but the number of judges that understand technology issues, I would expect, is very small. But if governments stepped up and formally came up with a group with the knowledge and tools to solve problems that traditional goverments know little or nothing about, then we would be one step closer to having an internet and legal system that was more in favour of the people in the right as opposed to the people with the money (although sometimes those groups overlap.)
Sounds Familiar? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does this story sound familiar?
Fair Domain-Dispute Arbitration Firm Quits the Business [slashdot.org] (Slashdot 12/05)
Here's the story the /. article links to:
Arbitration Firm Quits Domain-Dispute Business [newsbytes.com]
I think it's nice to see a study validate the anecdotal evidence given by the arbitration firm mentioned in the /. story. What's odd to me is that in this system of arbitration, the parties, in essence, get to choose the judges. It makes me think of the whole wrong-headed style of journalism that's pervasive today that assumes that to do a fair story, you interview people at the extremes of an issue, and decide that the truth is somewhere in the middle, without ever considering that one or both sides are simply wrong.
Isn't this precisely why judges (int he US) are assigned to cases based on a lottery system?
Scrotor? (Score:3, Interesting)
Heck, I'd better had given this monay to subscribe to the new slashdot subscription system (altho I really like the big ads). The dudes, just stole the name, registered scrotor.biz for themselves and now ask $1000 for it.
Posting anonymously, because I don't want to reveal my name nor the name of my company.
This happened to one of my buddies (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, since he makes over $100k a year as a consultant, he gives generously to the EFF and is a vocal opponent of ICANN and their pro-corporatist domain dispute rules. He is actively working for change in the system, and although the road is long, I am confident that someday we will win this battle.
A fair dispute-resolution process (Score:2)
A fair dispute-resolution process would be like this:
In consequence, anything goes, and if someone doesn't like someone else's lookup table, they can create their own and hope people use it. If people don't want to, tough.
Having said that, I don't think it's important anymore, most people look in up in Google rather than trying to guess the URL.
Authorities bastardized words for one use (Score:3, Interesting)
Fact: UDRP is bull* propaganda.
For one thing, it goes against Unfair Competition Law - they give priority to one business above others, who share the same word(s) or initials. For another they abridge the use of words to the people.
I have been in contact, for quite some time, with US and UK authorities (and lawyers) on these domain and trademark problems.
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over.
MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country.
For example, the World Trade Organization - WTO shares its initials with six trademarks - in the U.S. alone. The same with any initials, International Trade Centre - ITC, International Monetary Fund - IMF etc., etc., etc.
Same for any word apple, ball, cat etc., etc., etc. They all are shared by many other businesses.
The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and the United States Department of Commerce know the answer to exclusively identify ALL trademark domains.
It would allow ALL to use their trademark, without 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off'.
Based on all evidence, I believe the authorities are corrupt. If they truly wanted rid of these problems, why do they not use the solution?
People and small non-trademarked businesses could then use domains without these excuses being used to take away (steal) their legal property in UDRP.
The simple solution was ratified by honest attorneys - including the honourable G. Gervaise Davis III, UN WIPO panellist judge.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk] to see - no connection with United Nations WIPO.org.
Look at 2600 (Score:4, Insightful)
In my opinion, the entire concept of how domain names are registered has to go. You should only be allowed ONE domain per trademark. None of this
www.ford.com/net/org/biz/mil/gov/us/edu
www.fordcars.com/net/org/biz/mil/gov/us/edu
www.ilikeford.com/net/org/biz/mil/gov/us/edu
www.fordcarsaredangerous.com/net/org/biz/mil/go
This is silly. And im still siting here without a domain because i dont wana pay 20$ a year to some company for one line in their zone file.
http://www.open-rsc.org is the only way to go.
Wow (Score:4, Funny)
Stop the presses, I don't believe it.
Arbitration is a scam (Score:2, Insightful)
First, arbitration is completely unregulated. The National Arbitration Forum can go down to the nearest bar and pull in drunks, give them money, and call them arbitrators. And there's nothing you can do about it.
I objected to the arbitrator I got stuck with, as he wasn't qualified under the law. Guess who judges the objections? Yep - the good old NAF. A different drunk who's on the same payroll. What we have here are the foxes guarding the chicken coop. And they could care less about your objections, the law, or any sense of fairness.
They don't have to. The NAF is a law unto itself.
Sorry for the ranting here, but I'm pissed about this scam.
You ought to be concerned too, unless you'll never sign a contract with a binding arbitration clause. More and more estential services require these now - good luck in avoiding this.
I am pro-UDRP (Score:1)
UDRP is a good thing!
Our company has lately been a target for two squatting attempts. Most of the WIPO and NAF cases are like ours: Some schmuck registers company.net or company.biz before the company in question, and then tries to extort money for it. As a response, we always file a UDRP complaint.
Let me go through what you need to prove to take the domain name from the holder:
0. That you have paid at least $950 to file the dispute (for a single domain name). It is not free. On top of this you have the lawyer fees.
1. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to your trademark or service mark. That is, you need to have registered the mark earlier. No one can challenge a name that is not their mark.
2. The domain name holder has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. If the current holder has legitimate interest in the domain name, there is no case!
3. The name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Bad faith is defined as (but not limited to) offering to sell it or being in the business of selling domain names, that is, being a domain name squatter. Or, registering the name in purpose of disrupting your business, or preventing the trademark owner from doing business with the name. Or, deliberately misleading people to your website in search of the trademark owner.
The cases in which the respondent has a valid argument are a very small minority. Most of the decisions serve a valid purpose of protecting trademarks.
vivendiuniversalsucks.com is an exception. But in the case filings I see that they did not try to pass as a parody - parody would be protected by trademark law. Remember that you can always challenge a UDRP decision in other courts! That's what this guy should have done, I think.
And for the people who say the UDRP favors big business: Of course it does! But so does trademark law. The biggest companies usually have the most recognized trademarks in the audience. And here the audience is the world. If you select n Internet users at random, and ask them which company they would associate "Apple" to, most of them give Apple computer corporation as answer. This is the reasoning why Apple should own apple.com.
However, in the cases where the respondent is found to have a legitimate interest in the domain name, I think the complainant should pay all his lawyer fees.
What comes to the complainant selecting the judges, that is the way arbitration is usually done. And, let me say it again: if you do not like the decision, go ahead and challenge it in a real court!
UDRP FAQ at ChillingEffects.org [chillingeffects.org]
Re:Domain (Score:2, Funny)
[150m.com]
For some reason, I find it hilarious that a Web site entitled "The Individualist Anarchist" [150m.com] stuffs cookies down my browser.
Oh, well. Who am I to tell its webmaster what to do? *rimshot*