<lurkoff>
The UDRP is flawed. I think we all can agree on that. The fact that a
generic word like "foamy", registered as a domain name, can be judged by the
arbitrators to be in violation of someone's trademark, is ludicrous. That,
I think is the issue in a nutshell.
The fact that the respondent failed to register his appeal in the proper
jurisdiction, is unfortunate.
Certainly the UDRP needs to be tightened to protect domain name holders from
over-jealous attempts to proclaim trademark infringement.
I think that Tucows acted in the only way it could, given the Registrar
Agrement with ICANN in this case. Tucows has come out very strongly in
favour of the rights of domain holders, specifically regarding the issue of
protection of privacy, concerning the selling of whois information, and has
stated their intention to push for restrictions in the ICANN Registrar
Agreement to deal with this. While that is not an issue directly related to
this issue, I think it speaks to Tucows' committment to the rights of
Registrants.
What we all need to do is mount a strong campaign towards faciliating making
changes in the UDRP.
</lurkoff>
Eric Beck
Beck Web Servers & Design
