Ok.. 2 posts
Steve , you are missing my point. The UDRP and WIPO systems are beatable on
this, because both those systems are based on the premise/assumption that
you actually registered the domain name. They cannot take away what you do
not have.
Make no mistake, I find these actions ethically reprehensible, and quite
possibly illegal pursuant to the DoC contract, the root dns structure (and
I actually have a rare bit of sympathy for Microsoft and AOL in this too).
But I think that to say that it is against the UDRP is a stretch. Those
mechanisms are powerless in this situation. IP/trademark law however will
be successful where these fail.
The legality of modifying unilaterally the dns root system will be another
situation altogether.
We all know that ethics isn't a strong suit for registries and a good many
registrars alike, so complaining about ethics won't go very far. Legalities
however will be another matter, and this will be a court clogger, and
hopefully another expensive lesson for Verisign.
We could always demand that we have an oversight organization to regulate
this industry, oh wait .. :))
Gord
At 05:37 PM 09/15/2003 -0400, steve@seasoned-software.com wrote:
>It IS against the UDRP! The UDRP *****CLEARLY**** states that you can NOT
>use a name that contains a trademark, you don't own, or is made to divert
>traffic from same!
>
>cokacola.com
>wwww.cocacola.com
>ww.coke.com
>
>Would ALL not be legal names. The violate trademarks, and are meant to
>divert traffic. (Both spelled out in the UDRP.)
>
>thisis.a-jokers-cakewalk.com
>
>might not be against the UDRP, but it IS against antitrust laws, and just
>not right. That is ****EXACTLY**** what the suit was about that opened
>up competition. The ONLY difference is they don't get paid directly, and
>they don't use disk space. Can anyone tell me any other difference besides
>their using a name that doesn't exist to get indirect income, and a name
>that does to get direct income?
>
>At least OTHER people were doing it with private networks, or with an
agreement.
>
>Steve
>
>
>>-- Original Message --
>>Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 16:46:32 -0400
>>To: steve@seasoned-software.com, discuss-list@opensrs.org
>>From: Registrar <Registrar@domainnamesystems.com>
>>Subject: Re: Verisign to Make Money from Typos
>>
>>
>>
>>Time for my once in 3 years discuss list post.
>>
>>
>>How is it against the UDRP?.. What exactly are you going to WIPO?
>>The name doesn't exist!! It's an IP attorneys wet dream at that layer.
>>
>>On the other layer, I'd say that unilaterally modifying the roots and dns
>>system is more the issue here. And a serious one at that.
>>
>>Small wonder the ccTLDs (or anyone else for that matter) don't trust
>>VeriSign or their puppet ICANN.
>>
>>Can't wait for MS(IE) and AOL(Proprietary browser/Netscape) to bring out
>>a
>>security "patch" that no longer resolves Icann.org or Verisign.* or
>>NetworkSolutions.*
>>
>>:)))
>>
>>Gord Jeske
>>CEO
>>Domain Name Systems, Inc.
>>Englewood Florida
>>
>>Offices in: US and Canada
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>At 03:50 PM 09/15/2003 -0400, steve@seasoned-software.com wrote:
>>>Doing this would devalue domain names, give them an unjust MONOPOLY, cut
>>>many companies intercepting this on THEIR networks out of the picture(I
>>>don't think THIS is right EITHER, but these companies, one of which is
>>Microsoft,
>>>WILL be fighting against this.), destroy validation checks, and many other
>>>things.
>>>
>>>It is CLEARLY not right, and according to the UDRP not even LEGAL! What
>>>is the difference between my registering yhoo.com to get traffic,and their
>>>intercepting it?
>>>
>>>If you ask me, *I* should have more right, since I would pay for it, and
>>>have paid taxes that helped them(verisign, although I DID help support
>the
>>>college where the precursor to yahoo once was hosted.) to get here in
>the
>>>first place. Yet I CAN'T becauseit violates the UDRP, devalues yahoos
>>domain,
>>>and is thus unethical.
>>>
>>>Verisign would be breaking THOSE ethics/laws AND have a monopoly and be
>>>misusing what amounts to be a utility. They have already been sued ONCE
>>>for FAR less on the basis of a monopoly ONLY. THAT is why opensrs and
>other
>>>competitors exist!!!!
>>>
>>>As Stossel would say "GIVE ME A BREAK!"
>>>
>>>Steve
>>>
>>>>-- Original Message --
>>>>Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 20:32:06 +0200
>>>>To: discuss-list@opensrs.org
>>>>Subject: Re: Verisign to Make Money from Typos
>>>>From: "Kai Schaetzl" <maillists@conactive.com>
>>>>Reply-To: discuss-list@opensrs.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dave Warren wrote on Sat, 13 Sep 2003 12:04:38 -0600:
>>>>
>>>>> Why not?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I didn't expect they had the chuzpe to fake all ns lookups. But as I
>see
>>>>
>>>>they already do this for .cc and .tv. Nevertheless, I expect a major
>
>>>>uproar from providers worldwide if they start doing this for com/net
>as
>>>
>>>>well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Kai
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>
>>>>Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
>>>>Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
>>>>IE-Center: http://ie5.de & http://msie.winware.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:37:47 EDT