RE: [wg-b] me thinks thou dost protect too much ...

[Mikki Barry <ooblick@netpolicy.com>]

At 1:13 PM +1000 4/13/00, Rothnie, Warwick wrote:
>Milton Mueller wrote:
>
>  >Based on real statistics
>
>  >We don't have ten thousand disputes per million names.
>
>  >After three months of UDRP, we have exactly 577 disputed names.
>
>I guess I can only offer an ad hoc or qualitative insight on this test: for
>just one of my clients I am currently running at about 20 to 30
>cybersquatting disputes for each one that gets as far as the ICANN UDRP.
>For another client,  we are running about 10 disputes for each one that gets
>as far as ICANN (taking into account the ICANN complaints being prepared).
>
>Unfortunately, almost all of these names have been registered since June
>1999.

Tell me, what does "cybersquatting" in this context mean?  Many 
trademark lawyers consider a "cybersquatter" to be anyone who has a 
domain name their client wants.  Brings to mind a case I dealt with 
in which an innocent domain name holder got a cease and desist from a 
large company on a generic English word on which they had a 
trademark.  Rather than fight, the woman asked the company to simply 
refund her registration fees to her and she would go choose another 
name.  She was immediately labeled a "cybersquatter"

How many of these disputes are against people who use the domain name 
for non commercial purposes?  How many are just character string 
conflicts?

Molding an entire technical structure around a tiny number of 
disputes does not add technical stability to the DNS.  Especially 
since, in my experience, the vast majority of these claims are merely 
covetous parties trying to bully innocent domain name users into 
giving up legitimate uses of generic English words.

In my practice, I receive at minumum 5 queries per week from people 
who are being threatened who have not offered the name for sale, and 
who are using the name in a non infringing manner.