I understand the situation very well, Mikki. What I was working towards was
a useful series of responses from C. Gomes that could be used as evidence
for your thesis. I won't be able to elicit those statements from him if you
cram the answers down his throat. Please try to hold back a little.
Mikki Barry a �crit:
>
> At 6:56 PM -0500 2/1/99, Michael Sondow wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] a �crit:
> >>
> >> Per the request of Michael Sondow, the following data is
> >> provided in response to the question "how many times did NSI
> >> invoke its Domain Name Dispute Policy?"
> >>
> >> During the slightly more than 5 months between the end of
> >> July 1995 and the end of the year, we invoked the Policy 166
> >> times.
> >> During 1996 we invoked the Policy 745 times.
> >> During 1997 we invoked the Policy 905 times
> >> During 1998 we invoked the Policy 838 times.
> >
> >Thanks for the info, Chuck. Very interesting, really. Considering the large
> >increase over time in registrations, it's surprising that the policy hasn't
> >been invoked ever more frequently as well. Any explanation for this? Two
> >that could be suggested are: 1) The policy has tended to discourage people;
> >2) The number of free domains of any value to resellers has diminished.
> >Somehow, I don't think either of these is the answer. Any ideas?
>
> you think maybe, JUST maybe....cybersquatting isn't such a huge issue as
> some would have you believe? If cybersquatting, by definition, is the
> taking of a trademarked name as a domain name, and if the "squatee" can
> just invoke this policy and get the domain name......one would think that
> such a terrible and widespread problem as cybersquatting would show a
> marked increase in disputes, no?
>
> I mean, if it's THAT easy to get the domain name and it isn't being used
> very much, then how can one possibly advocate other extra legal approaches
> that are touted to be more "fair" than the NSI policy?
