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
ICANN, who is drafting the policy is funded by large corporations who are
previously have been involved with name disputes. (i.e.
I would sincerely hope that ICANN is developing a dispute policy that is
There are several trademarks regarding the word "MILLER"
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
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 else.
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 Miller.Com?
Why is ICANN trying to establish precedence over a small portion of law
the full meaning and text of law being taken into consideration for
everyone? A blanket rule cannot
and will not work for these disputes.
This current dispute draft is comparable to Tiger Woods challenging a
round of golf to an amateur
golfer with the amateur having 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
The ICANN dispute policy is setting this precedence for large
In it's current version, this dispute policy cannot be accepted.