At 06:16 AM 2/2/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> 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.
>Maybe the policy has discouraged people from registering
>trademarked names. This of course is just a hypothesis. It
>would be difficult to substantiate.
>
>Chuck
One must not forget that Mr. Gomes has an advantage over all of the rest of
us -- he is with NSI, which conducts these "invocations" in fiercely
protected secrecy. If the public could review these "invocations" the way
it can study the actions of ordinary courts, the public could consider
whether the invocations were fair or not, and whether they do or do not
discourage things.
Many of these invocations caused harm, falling into the category of NSI
becoming the willing accomplice of a reverse domain name hijacker. For
example, the 838 invocations in 1998 included the "veronica.org" case in
which NSI concluded that a little girl named Veronica was somehow
infringing the trademark rights of a publisher of comic books. The 905
invocations in 1997 included the "pokey.org" case in which NSI concluded
that a little boy named Pokey was somehow infringing the trademark rights
of a distributor of television programs. The 745 invocations in 1996
included the "juno.com" case in which NSI concluded that an email service
provider was somehow infringing the trademark rights of a maker of electric
light fixtures. The 166 invocations in 1995 included the "perfection.com"
case in which NSI concluded that a printing company was somehow infringing
the trademark rights of a maker of children's games.
Those cases happened to be publicly visible. But NSI makes its decisions
in secret, and one wonders what fraction of NSI's decisions under this
policy were as wrongheaded as the decisions it made in these publicly
visible cases. I am aware of many, many dozens of cases that were never
public but in which NSI's decisions were as wrongheaded as the decisions it
made in the publicly visible cases.
NSI refuses to allow the public to review its domain name cutoff decisions.
I suggest that this secretiveness is due at least in part to NSI's
embarrassment at how many of its cutoff decisions went so wrong.
