Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play

[Patrick Greenwell <patrick () cybernothing org>]

On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, William Allen Simpson wrote:

> Another stated rationale is that ICANN UDRP is "flawed".  I'm not sure 
> how adding pirate domains improves the UDRP.  The pirate has publically 
> stated that it will follow the UDRP.
>
> Several folks suggested examples of "reverse-hijacked" domain 
> decisions.  I've taken a bit of time to look at the most frequently 
> cited.  Here's two that are exemplar:

We really are wandering from operational content, but I simply couldn't
pass this up because it contains so much bad information.

> barcelona.com -- a UDRP decision by a WIPO panel.
>
> Seems to have been correctly decided.  They lost on not one, not two, 
> but three issues!  
>
> Look at those dates.  A race to the registrar, by mere days, clearly
> designed to prevent the city from using the .com domain.

What exactly are you talking about? The domain had been registered
since 1996, and the site had been in operation since 1997. 

Please see the lawsuit that the owners filed against the City Council of
Barcelona:

http://www.domainbattles.com/lawsuit3.htm

Notable excerpt:
"For several years, <bcn.es> and <Barcelona.com> peacefully coexisted; in
fact until May 2000, defendants website <bcn.es> provided a link to
plaintiffs website <Barcelona.com>."

I think that about ends any discussion of rather it is a case of attempted
reverse-hijacking or not.

Beyond that the kind folks at SWIPO went well beyond their mandate with
this gem: "...However, such right of interest is and will be always
subject to the lack of disputes with parties having better rights or more
legitimate interests as in this case..." 

"Better rights? More legitimate interests?" Even the UDRP doesn't go that
far. 

> I'd have decided it on the final issue alone

You'd have a great career at SWIPO.

> Just the kind of behaviour that the UDRP was designed to fix. 

Guess what? The original registrants still have posession and use of the
domain. Of course the original registrant had to go to court in order to
prevent the theft of their domain, a theft made possible by the UDRP and
your friends at SWIPO. 

Previously, the would-be hijackers would have to go to court(which they
would and will no doubt be laughed out of.) So the net result is that the
original registrant has to incur a good deal of legal expenses that they
otherwise wouldn't have had to as the hijackers wouldn't have a case in
the U.S. and thus a suit would have been pointless.  

The UDRP was designed by WIPO, an organization dedicated to intellectual
property interests, not to the interests of individuals and/or consumers.