I believe, but am not sure, that the statistics cited by Gomes refer to the
number of times NSI used the policy suspended a name. I say this because the
Gomes statements say "we" (NSI) invoked the policy.
The statistics that are in the Syracuse study and the WIPO report both
contain measures of the number of times parties requested that the policy be
invoked.
All measures are declining. The requests to invoke the NSI DRP fell from
approx one in every 900 names registered to one in every 2,600 names
registered in the past six months.
Let's face facts. Cybersquatting can still be an irritant, but in absolute
terms the problem is small and declining rapidly. We are dealing with the
tail end of a hump. Between 1994 and the middle of 1995, domain name
registrations were free, and for most of 1995 and 1996 there were de facto
free because large numbers of names could be registered without paying for
them. There was a cybersquatting boom during this period. The law was
ambiguous and the corporations with major trademarks were behind the curve.
The boom is over, the corporations have woken up. Noone is getting rich from
cybersquatting. Everyone who has systematically tried to do so has gotten
squashed. Services to promote pre-emptive and defensive registrations of
names across all TLDs have proliferated. We don't need to make drastic
changes in the DNS to deal with this diminishing problem.
--MM
Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
> During the relevant periods:
>
> (1) how many times did parties request that the Policy be invoked?
>
> (2) of the times the Policy was invoked, how often did the Policy lead to
> No Action Taken, Suspension, Deregistration or defenestration?
>
