[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Fwd: Comments I sent to the ICANN Small Drafting Committee]

---- Begin included message ----
Carl and all,

  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 today
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        should be withdrawn, and penalties should be imposed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

Regards,

--
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.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
 

---- End included message ----