Re: AW: [ICANN-EU] Internetnews - Was Madonna.com Decision Rigged?

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Harald, Christians and others;

At 12:58 19/10/00, you wrote:
>(about Madonna)
>There are reasons to complain about UDRP decisions.
>I don't think this is one of them.
>--
>Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand@cisco.com
>+47 41 44 29 94
>Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no

You are probably right, if you accept the UDRP. But I see five main
reasons not to accept the UDRP in the current context:

-  lack of object. I will over repeat myself, UDRP is about Domain Names.
    "Domain name" is not a common word with an established meaning. It
    belongs to the Internet jargon as well as the other items defined in the
    leadng definition list of the self-contained UDRP description document.
    As long as "Domain Name" is not defined there, the UDRP cannot
    rule about Domain Names.

-  biased promoter. The UDRP has been devised by the ICANN to protect
    itself, the registries and the registrars against the plaintifs and 
defendants
    who may reasonably claim that they are reponsible since they granted
    what the defendant only requested while other registries and registrars
    have taken steps to check the requests.

    This is why I said in another post that UDRP has nothing to do with
    the ICANN. And that the solution lays in applying the common local laws,
    provided ICANN, registries and registrars are not reproached to have
    validated the SLD+TLD requested by the defendant.

-  biased judge. If I want to contest an UDRP, it would be perfectly fair
    from me to call on the WIPO as the best source of expertise on TMs
    and the best defender of the TMs owners.

    How could such a witness also be accepted as a judge in the same
    case. When one selects a Jury one does not usually call the witnesses.

    (I would certainly understand WIPO to rule UDRP when both the
    plaintiff and the defendant are TMs owners, but not when of them is
    not).

-  lack of law. Obviously DN legal environment is different depending on
    when it is: when ordering, when using, when beeing contested. Let
    first have a clear DN regulation. The main document is the text at the
    time of registration:

    - it does not define the DN
    - it says that the DN are in a "changing system", so what is true
      today may have changed tomorrow.
    - none of the usual (constitutional protections in the US may be used)

-  lack of competence. Quite every UDRP states on "bad faith", on the
    contents of the sites, etc... There is no proper investigation, there is
    real proof (they say madonna.com was a porn site. This may be true,
    but wow do they prove it?). Thes means that the ICANN is indirectly
    involved in content evaluation/filtering.

    I think every of us are against ICANN being involved in any way in
    content? It would be mined fields.

Jefsey