Hello Jack,
>From what I have read, the problem you have had would have happened
with ANY registrar, not just Tucows.
I agree that this is a bad thing, but this problem is with ICANN and
the way they forced registrars into "voluntarily" adopting the UDRP,
after claiming that registrars would be free to establish their own
dispute policies.
The facts are that ICANN, which is controlled mostly by its
IP/Trademark/Big Corp and Government puppetmasters, adopted a policy
that contains numerous flaws, and grants rights above and beyond any
rights granted to trademark holders by the laws of any country.
You lost the domain, and short of a lawsuit against the complainant,
it doesn't sound like you are going to get it back.
Rather than railing against Tucows, who really has their hands tied
here (as any registrar would), you should instead be railing against
ICANN and the UDRP.
The facts are that myself and many others thought the UDRP worked the
way you indicated you thought it did, in letting the registrant decide
where to file the complaint to stop the transfer, when in fact, the
UDRP does not.
This is one of many fatal flaws in the UDRP that need to be addressed,
effectively placing the burden on the registrant to not only prove
their innocence in the arbitration phase, but to then incur incredible
expense to block the action because of this the clause Ross pointed
out in his email.
The burden, both in cost and in proof, have been mislaid here. This
may in fact provide a means for legally dismantling the UDRP, but to
do that, you would most likely have to file a lawsuit against the
Registrar, since ICANN is not really a party to any agreement with
you, despite the way they strongarmed the registrars into using the
UDRP.
--
Best regards,
William mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
