Slashdot Mirror
WIPO Dispute Decisions Contestable In U.S. Courts
Thu Anon Coward writes: "Yahoo is reporting that the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston has said that WIPO domain disputes can be contested in court. A domain name holder may file a civil action suit in U.S. courts. Apparently we can thank the 'Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act,' signed by former President Clinton."
This only affect international disputes, say those in Canada.
If they're in Canada then they're intranational not international. To be international they'd have to occur between nations e.g. a dispute between Canada and Sweden would be international. A dispute that took place outside of any nation could also be argued to be international as in "international waters". A dispute that takes place within one nation cannot be international, by definition.
...the U.S. government is getting involved in situations that should be beyond their control. How is it that a U.S. court gets to overide a internationally accepted organization whose purpose is to provide continuity. Especially in regards to the internet, a medium in which borders do not really apply very well.
Any wonder why the international community looks at us (Americans) as a bunch of rich bullies?
Regardless of jurisdiction, he has an untenable case. The First Circuit Court of Appeals didn't rule on the merits of the case, simply ruling that the US courts have jursidiction, something that both US law and ICANN's UDRP agree on.
For background on the case, see this article on slashdot, or these cases on WIPO's site. In a nutshell, he registered domains for two Brazillian soccer teams, Cruizero and Corinthians. He approached Corinthians about selling the domain, they sent him a notice to hand it over. He then put up bible quotes, and claimed that they were stomping on his first amendment and freedom of religion rights, but lost in UDRP proceedings.. It doesn't help his case that the registrant for his domains was "prestige domains (for sale)", nor does it paint a good picture that he registered dowjonesupdate.com and tonimorrison.com, though he handed over both of those without ICANN interceding.
This guy is a domain speculator, pure and simple. He (rightfully) lost two cases to the trademark holders, and he's not happy that he didn't get paid for being first to register the domains. Personally, I'm surprised the low-life found the nickles to rub together to retain a lawyer to put it to the courts.
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
Well, the US government did set up the foundations of the internet, and I do recall that the U.S. Department of Commerce still has overall control over ICANN. So technically they do control the internet. A lot of rootservers are in the US, and the root-servers are the fundamental resource for control over the internet.
I live in the UK and i'm fine with the system. Like another poster said the courts are a lot better than WIPO. And if you're so unhappy with the situation why not go and set up your own DNS system that you will have control over. Why don't other countries do that as well? They have an idea that the internet is freedom, wherein fact they are connected to a US network which has gone global. (ignoring the fact that country TLD's are probably in the jurisdiction of a country's court system as they are based there - but IANAL)
If other countries want control of "the internet" they can make their own networks with their own DNS systems. Of course this would lead to namespace fragmentation and (maybe) duplication. And they might also have to block access to sites who in their opinion are "bad" or are "cybersquatters". In my opinion this would not make it an internet anymore.
Maybe someone should campaign for a change in the DNS system so that there is a seperate system for every country... Making a micro-government (whatever that is) wouldn't help. They'll still be a goverment, and liable to corruption. How will they be elected? Who is the electorate? These have to be thought through before setting anything up, and then there is the question of who is going to give them the power and legitimacy anyway. In that case, ICANN can be called a "micro-goverment" - even though IMO it's no good at all.