[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[wg-b] Response to Milton M.

At 06:21 PM 9/2/99 -0400, you wrote:
>eileen kent wrote:
>> I believe that the dispute reolution
>> policy will do much to minimize the wholesale, blatant fraud that goes on
>> routinely.
>Do you have any factual evidence, other than the irritation and crocodile
>of the trademark lobby, that "wholesale, blatant fraud" happens
"routinely"? I
>have studied this from an academic standpoint and I don't agree. I think
>cybersquatting was a temporary problem that emerged in 96 and 97 when the law
>was unclear and when NSI was not charging for domains for some time. There is
>strong evidence that the problem is declining and that it composes a very
>percentage of all domains registered.

I could be guilty of hyperbole but not of crocodile tears. My personal
experience, involvement in and knowledge of a number of cases involving
fraud led me to extrapolate.  I have not done the research and cannot back
up my supposition that fraud is "wholesale, blatant and routine." My
apologies. I will be more careful with my language.

If new gtlds are introduced, I think there will be new rounds of
cybersquatting. The strong evidence that the problem is declining could be
due to the fact that opportunity is declining (all the good ones have been
taken). New gtlds will provide new opportunities. An acceptable UDRP could
save a lot of wear and tear on the courts. 

More than ten million domain names have been registered. What's a very tiny
percentage? One percent is 100,000. That's a lot.