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, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>From: Registrar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>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, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>Subject: Re: Verisign to Make Money from Typos >>>>From: "Kai Schaetzl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> >>>> >>>>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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > >
