Re: Elections/Endorsements

[Marc Schneiders <marc@bijt.net>]

Dear Andreas,

On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, Andreas Fügner wrote:

> Dear Marc:
> 
> There are not "too many" candidates.
> We are at the beginning of this process.
> There were no discussions yet.
> 

We are starting them... and it is making things clear. To me anyway.

> 
> UDRP in general is a good procedure.
> Just see it for what it is: Mediation, maybe followed by arbitration.
> One can still go to court after mediation.

Yes, with sufficient funds one always can. The UDRP was also a way to
resolve claims on domains without too expensive procedures. Too
expensive usually for the small business or person whose domain is
taken by the big ones. It does *not* turn out to work that way.

> > All those, whom you call evicted, just gave up early. 
> If they were serious about owning their domain,
> they should defend it with all their power.

I think this is, quite simply, a lie. There are numerous cases in
which the evicted or ousted, as I'd like to put it, owner, did fight.
The problem is the big company who wants the domain chooses the judge!
(For those new to UDRP: the complainant chhooses the judge, think
about it.) And of course small people cannot go to court after UDRP.
They haven't got the money to pay the over expensive lawyers that are
necessary to file. And they have only a very short period to file the
case with a court, which makes it impossible to raise funds.

I could never go to court when I were ousted from a domain. It would
mean bankrupcy over lawyer fees. The big companies know this. For them
the UDRP is just a try. They can afford it. They can also afford the
lawyers afterwards if necessary.
Many cases heard by WIPO would have been thrown out of any court. They
would not have been heard.

> > Complaining companies withdrew often after noticing, 
> that the other party was willing to fight.

I'm sure there may be a few (how many?) cases for which this is true.
There are many others, and much more that were put through, even
though they should not have been allowed to be heard at all in the
first case. Recent example: corinthians.com. See

http://www.corinthians.ousted.net/

The fact is that far too many cases have been decided on some construe
of bad faith, stretching the meaning of the term beyond any common
understanding of it, and, which is even worse, far beyond the rules of
UDRP. Isn't it funny that even so-called speculators now receive
sympathy in the press, despite the carefull coining and misuse of the
term cybersquatter to label them as criminals?

It has to stop. Soon. The review of the UDRP will be the test case for
ICANN. If it cannot remedy its plainly mischievous features, it is
dead. Others will take over its role. They are already waiting.

I do not want this to happen. But it will, if ICANN does not change
the UDRP as it is functioning now.

It is a flagrant violation of basic human rights: freedom of speech
and protection of property. And, please, do not try to convince me
that legally a domain is not property. Why would people fight for them
and pay sometimes large amounts of money for them, if they were not?

As to the freedom of speech aspects of domain names: Just read the
recent news about domains that were forbidden in Germany. Maybe you
don't like people with Nazi sympathies, I certainly do not share their
views. The ease, however, with which domains can be deleted in Germany
I would certainly not want extended to the whole world.

Don't take the freedom away from internet. Not even a little. Your
children will hate you for it in ten or fifteen years.

Marc

--
Marc Schneiders ------- Venster - http://www.venster.nl 
|marc@venster.nl - marc@bijt.net - marc@schneiders.org|



> Andreas Fuegner > 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Marc Schneiders <marc@venster.nl>
> An: Andreas Fügner <Andreas.Fuegner@lizenz.com>
> Cc: Thomas Themel <thomas@themel.com>; marc@schneiders.org
> <marc@schneiders.org>; icann-europe@fitug.de <icann-europe@fitug.de>
> Datum: Sonntag, 13. August 2000 11:59
> Betreff: Re: Elections/Endorsements
> 
> 
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2000, Andreas Fügner wrote:
> 
> > Dear Marc, dear Thomas:
> >
> > We should not reduce the number of candidates.
> > Freedom needs choices.
> 
> I agree there shoud be choice. That is why I put myself up :-)
> Too many candidates are a risk though, that none will end up on the
> ballot, but those from ICANN itself.
> 
> Therefore may I ask you, Andreas, about your stance on freedom issues,
> especially as regards the UDRP and the large number of "evictions" by
> WIPO, usually in favour of large companies?
> 
> --
> Marc Schneiders ------- Venster - http://www.venster.nl
> marc@venster.nl - marc@bijt.net - marc@schneiders.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
>