---- End included message ----
Carl and all,
- To: Carl Oppedahl <carl@OPPEDAHL.COM>
- Subject: Re: Comments I sent to the ICANN Small Drafting Committee
- From: Jeff Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 16:05:25 +0100
- CC: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET,IFWP Discussion List <email@example.com>,"firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>,"Esther (The clueless) Dyson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Organization: INEG. Inc. (Spokesman INEGroup)
- References: <email@example.com>
All good points in your bullets here. I think we here at INEGroup
could agree with your draft for the most part.
The should be some emphasis placed on "Reverse Name Hijacking"
provisions in final policy, that is not even mentioned in ICANN's version
or Ken Stubbs version either. Should ICANN's "SELECTED COMITTEE"
not directly address the "Reverse Name Hijacking" issue clearly,
concisely and directly, they have failed miserably...
Carl Oppedahl wrote:I've posted at http://www.patents.com/nsi/sdc.htm the comments I sent todayRegards,
to the ICANN Small Drafting Committee regarding the domain name dispute
policy which they are designing. Bullet points include the following:
The present draft dispute policy should be
discarded, and an RFC 1591 policy enacted instead
No new long-term mechanism is needed for the
transitionary and diminishing problem of cybersquatting
The reverse domain name hijacking problem is an increasing one
No one in the Internet community, save trademark owners,
feels that WIPO or ICANN should take it upon themselves
to decide trademark disputes
The dispute policy should remain voluntary, that is,
individual registrars should retain their present freedom
to devise their own dispute policies
The "welcome mat" to reverse domain name hijackers
should be withdrawn, and penalties should be imposed
on reverse domain name hijackers through the policy
The "terror factor" of the policy should be dispelled
There should be a "statute of repose" for remedies
under the policy
There should be a limitations period tied to the age
of the trademark
The challenger should consent to jurisdiction and venue
for the domain name owner's declaratory judgment action
The tribunal should not be permitted to keep
bad decisions secret
The ten-day appeal deadline in the policy
should be much longer
The challenger should be required to take
all reasonable steps to give notice
Comments on the guideline "There should be a
general parity between the appeal rights of
complainants and domain name holders"
Comments on the guideline "The dispute policy
should seek to define and minimize reverse
domain name hijacking"
Comments on the claim that the dispute
policy would only be available in cases of
"bad faith" registrations of domain names
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208