According to ICANN: The dispute policy should seek to
define and minimize reverse domain name hijacking.
This drafted dispute policy is still immensely skewed
towards big corporations.
ICANN, who is drafting the policy is funded by large
corporations who are currently or
previously have been involved with name disputes.
I would sincerely hope that ICANN is developing a dispute
policy that is FAIR!
There are several trademarks regarding the word
MILLER - Miller Chemical Corpation
MILLER - Miller International Company
MILLER - Miller Brewing
MILLER - Capewell Components
MILLER - Miller Paint Group
MILLER - Miller Pipeline
MILLER - WGM Safety Corporation
MILLER - Miller Group Limited
plus many more who want the domain name Miller.Com.
(additionally there are over 250
trademark variations to the word MILLER).
Also, there is a guy named Joe Miller who is a painter and he
wants to set up a web site with
the name Miller.com.
However, there is a guy named Tommy Tutone who wants to start
a band and call it Miller.
He registered the name Miller.com before everyone
According to ICANN dispute policy, Tommy Tutone can be
challenged by any of the Miller Trademarks.
He hasn't competed with the Miller Companies. He isn't
competing with them. He isn't named Miller.
The ICANN dispute says he must give up the name.
Therefore establishing reverse domain name hijacking.
What Miller Company, if any, is entitled to the name
Miller.Com? Is Joe Miller entitled to
Miller.Com? Why isn't Tommy Tutone entitled to
Why is ICANN trying to establish precedence over a small
portion of law without
the full meaning and text of law being taken into
consideration for everyone? A blanket rule cannot
and will not work for these
This current dispute draft is comparable to Tiger Woods
challenging a round of golf to an amateur
golfer with his hands tied behind back. Just look
at how absurd this would be for golf. However, ICANN is
trying to accomplish this for big corporations who
fund ICANN's presence and being.
The ICANN dispute policy is setting this precedence for large
In it's current version, this dispute policy cannot be