Well said Eric
Tuesday, March 13, 2001, 9:15:41 PM, BWSD Hostmaster wrote:
> <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
--
Best regards,
William mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
