Re: [ga] ICANN benefits
On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 02:04:44PM -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
> If the adjudicators cannot get this right on their own -- and there seems to
> be considerable evidence that at least they haven't to date -- then methinks
> we need some explicit guidance added to the UDRP.
> In particular:
> A satire domain -- say, ibm-sucks.com or Incomplete-But-Marketable.net --
> is entirely legitimate.
One of the fundamental problem in that notion, however, is that "satire"
is an intrinsically subjective judgement. The UDRP is an arbitration
proceeding, not a court; the rules of procedure are much simpler, and
the safeguards are not as elaborate.
> The only URDP case that should even be considered
> against such domains
The problem is not so much protecting such domains; the problem is
> Also, multiple non-conflicting uses -- as in Sun Oil and Sun Microsystems,
> both valid trademarks in at least the US -- should be explicitly allowed.
> The burden of proof for alleged conflict is on the complainant.
Kent Crispin "Be good, and you will be
firstname.lastname@example.org lonesome." -- Mark Twain
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html