Re: [ICANN-EU] UDRP

[Marc Schneiders <marc@venster.nl>]

Dear Andreas,

On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Andreas Fügner wrote:

> Dear Marc Schneiders:
> 
> >Yes, apart from the "Period" you did mention that earlier. I think it
> >needs reform, lots of reform. Period.
> 
> 
>             I just had a brief email exchange with Judith Oppenheimer about
> the situation with
>             toll free numbers. No mediation there, the only solution is to
> go to court. I think with
>             UDRP we are a step ahead here.
> 
>             Îf you think it needs reform, please add where and how.

I invite you to read the webpages that I put up about these matters. I
simply cannot go into you repetitive question again and again. Read those.
In case you are busy too, I give a hot news item as an example: WIPO has
just ordered the transfer of the domain barcelona.com to the barcelona
city council. There is nothing in UDRP about geographic names. Nothing. In
fact WIPO is still in the process of collecting comments on the matter
whether or not these should also be "protected". That does not stop them
from making a decision that goes far beyond the rules of UDRP. The rules
of UDRP themselves are largely alright. It is the way they are applied
that is wrong, especially in all those cases where WIPO goes far beyond
the intent and the text of the rules.
Barcelona.com is just the beginning of another surge of ousting,
evictions. Funny they always go for the .com names. The .net names they
leave alone. Why is that? Is a city council a business?
Anyway a city council does not own the name of the city. It is just plain
bad and it has to stop. WIPO is clearly *violating* the UDRP
rules. Period.

I will *not* respond to further messages from you about this. We've both
repeated our positions often enough here. I've tried to give examples and
indicated the lines of what I think reform should look like. I am sure
those who read this list understand what my ideas are. And yours.

> 
> >No, not as a separate issue. It is when it touches important aspects of
> >the politics ICANN is involved in. Don't you agree?
> 
> 
>             Yep, but this goes in circles. For you the WIPO seems to be
> "bad".
>             I am missing constructive proposals

See below.

> >Yes, I've heard of free (or inexpensive) legel aid. Where can I get that
> >if I need to go to a US court to get my domain back?
> 
>             OK, if a law suit is filed a court decides whether it is the
> right institution for this matter.
>             If yes, it informs the defendend. If the defendend has no legal
> representation,
>             a letter is all it takes, the court appointes a lawyer from
> legal aid.
>             Now this might not be the best choice. So, if I were in this
> situation,
>             I'd look on the internet. There are some lawyers working in this
> area
>             and consumer groups as well. One might find better advice (for
> free) there.

One might, one might not and one has just a little over a week to find it
in UDRP. One constructive proposal from me would be to make that a month.

> >Yes? Good. How much? Not the silly $10 or 12 euro, I hope, that a
> >registration costs. But reimbursement is not what I heard are ICANN's
> >plans. No, to make it worse, there was talk in Yokohama about letting
> >those that loose a domain pay for the procedure as well, thus making it
> >necessary to small people to give up the domain in stead of fighting for
> >it. Nobody on the board spoke up against it.
> 
> 
>             So far I think in terms of costs for registration, setup,
> maintenance,
>             replacement, etc.

Vague, very vague. Lost business opportunities? Loss of a platform for
once ideas? Loss of ones rights to free speech? How much is that worth in
$$?

> >OK, I fight for those principles you call platitudes. I do not think I am
> >Robin Hood or Jesus or Mao. Some people who are WIPO-ed may be (small !)
> >business people. Others are people who owned their personal name as
> >domain name, or a nickname they had used for 5 years, or a book
> >from the bible they had a special love for. Nothing to do with
> >business. If you let go on these matters of *principle* all users will be
> >at risk to loose their name. Many more people will get their own domains
> >in the near future. It is already happening. It is not an issue of
> >speculators. That is what the WIPO / IP / TM lobby are trying to turn it
> >into. "Bad faith, bad faith, bad faith" is the miraculous word to shout.
> >And that's what they do. And that's how they win. It has to stop.
> 
>             "Bad faith" is a legal term. It means somebody acted allthough
> he/she knew better.
>             Instead of "in good faith" which means: Sorry, I did not know.
>             It is difficult to argue "good faith",  if one registers a
> domain and offers it to a
>             trademark owner for purchase.

Look, I am not defending people who do that. I've never been. Not
wwwyahoo.com or ayhoo.com. That is trying to infringe on a trademark. That
is misleading. I am talking about corinthians.com, crew.com (which is a
difficult case), barcelona.com, sting.com (which was not transferred, i
know, but shouldn't even have been heard!). To name just a few.

> >The same but in another way. What I stand for is clear. What do you stand
> >for? "Representing the majority of unnoticed users", means
> >what? Now, talking about platitudes, could you be more specific? You want
> >to represent, but why? What are your goals for ICANN? Better
> >internet access, faster, cheaper? That is what users care about, and I
> >don't blame them, on the contrary. But ICANN is not about that. It is
> >about infrastructures and how they serve, or oppress.
> 
> 
>             Exactly my point. ICANN is about securing infrastructure, which
> means service.
> 
>             Let's take electricity as an example. For decades consumers were
> paying for electricity
>             what the monopoly was asking. All under the cover of "reliable
> service". Recent
>             development proved, that the monopolists were illegaly
> subsidising other areas.

State monopolies should be over sooner. Absololutely. In my country you
still cannot choose who you pay for your local telephone calls
(=Internet!). So it is expensive. No flat fee. Big profits of which 43%
goes into the tax box, as the State owns that percentage of shares in the
former state company. Not to mention the VAT on it...

>             The solution is easy and legally confirmed by the European
> Antitrust Comissioner:
>             "A monopoly can be accepted, if necessary. The monopolist has to
> open its books
>             and make its calculation open to the public in an understandable
> way."
>             I'd like to have a discussion with the board members for example
> about NSI and ICANN.

Good idea! Really. I am not against it. Let it happen. There are other
matters though which I give priority at the moment. You know which.


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