Domain Name Dispute Process Called Into Question

Chemist109 writes "The Register has an article about a study of the domain name dispute resolution process. The study accuses domain arbitrators of "actively choosing judges who favoured complainants (trademark holders)." Since the complainant in a domain dispute is allowed to choose where a case is heard, this ensures the arbitrators continued revenue."

Comments

I think that

[.oO-DexteR-Oo.]

Judges should be chosen together by both parties.

Stupid ads
Why do they have to be so big?
Oh well.

yeah, but...

[checkitout]

I'd rather see it go to the trademark holders than to the domain squatters. It's ridiculous how many domains have been eaten up by company's whose sole purpose is to try and resell the domains for a higher price than they bought them for. It's much like scalping.

Re:yeah, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I too am annoyed by domain name speculation, but it really is no different from most capitalistic enterprises.
After you condemn "sqautters" as companies "whose sole purpose is to try and resell the domains for a higher price than they bought them for," try substituting, say, the word "corn" for the word "domain.s" Does the statement still make sense? I don't think so.
Do you condemn a company that buys corn, which they deviously have no intention of eating themselves, and then selling said corn for a higher price than they bought it for?
There is really no difference in the two scenarios here. These arbitrations are meant to steal the investments of companies and individuals who were simply smart enough to get in early on a trend. As annoying as that might be, we have to promote and defend an even playing field in trade and not just hand over assets to big companies every chance we get simply because they can afford influence and expensive counsel.
Now off to the cafe to buy coffee from a scalper barista.

Sounds Familiar?

[rakeswell]

Why does this story sound familiar?

Fair Domain-Dispute Arbitration Firm Quits the Business (Slashdot 12/05)

Here's the story the /. article links to:

Arbitration Firm Quits Domain-Dispute Business

I think it's nice to see a study validate the anecdotal evidence given by the arbitration firm mentioned in the /. story. What's odd to me is that in this system of arbitration, the parties, in essence, get to choose the judges. It makes me think of the whole wrong-headed style of journalism that's pervasive today that assumes that to do a fair story, you interview people at the extremes of an issue, and decide that the truth is somewhere in the middle, without ever considering that one or both sides are simply wrong.

Isn't this precisely why judges (int he US) are assigned to cases based on a lottery system?

Re:The article talks about paperwork?! Why YESSSSS

[Kamel Jockey]

You can't really blame Verisign for being a bunch of hard-asses. If a domain was transferred illegally, it could open them up to some very serious legal consequences. Frankly, I think it is a good thing that they require all this information before they will perform such an act.

Re:Reversing cause and effect?

[edwdig]

I don't know an sort of count, but if you read The Register frequently, you'll see a LOT of stories about really stupid decision in domain name cases. Like Vivendi Universal won the rights to vivendiuniversalsucks.com because "non-English speakers might not understand what sucks means and get confused." What else... I'm not positive on the details here, but I think Ford won the rights to jaguar.com from some little girl that had a site with hand drawn pictures of jaguars (the animals). I've seen plenty of really stupid decisions, and I certainly get the impression that the vast majority of domains get transferred ownership, no matter how legit they are.

Re:Reversing cause and effect?

[dkleinsc]

What is significant, in my mind, is not the 95% of decisions in favor of the complainant, which could legitamately come from domain name squatters, but the discrepency stated between the 1-judge and 3-judge results. When the defendant gets control of half the judging panel, suddenly the panel rules in their favor more than half the time. So if we assume, that on average the cases should be decided the same way regardless of the number of judges, then this result is saying, not surprisingly, that if only 1 side chooses the judge then the judge rules in favor of that side. Gee, I wonder why that might be?

Look at 2600

[kiltedtaco]

Just look at all the crap 2600 had to go thru. (http://www.2600.com)

In my opinion, the entire concept of how domain names are registered has to go. You should only be allowed ONE domain per trademark. None of this

www.ford.com/net/org/biz/mil/gov/us/edu

www.fordcars.com/net/org/biz/mil/gov/us/edu

www.ilikeford.com/net/org/biz/mil/gov/us/edu

www.fordcarsaredangerous.com/net/org/biz/mil/gov /u s/edu

This is silly. And im still siting here without a domain because i dont wana pay 20$ a year to some company for one line in their zone file.

http://www.open-rsc.org is the only way to go.

Arbitration is a scam

[Anonymous Coward]

I just went through this with the STOP process for a disputed .biz domain. Arbitration is an utter scam!

First, arbitration is completely unregulated. The National Arbitration Forum can go down to the nearest bar and pull in drunks, give them money, and call them arbitrators. And there's nothing you can do about it.

I objected to the arbitrator I got stuck with, as he wasn't qualified under the law. Guess who judges the objections? Yep - the good old NAF. A different drunk who's on the same payroll. What we have here are the foxes guarding the chicken coop. And they could care less about your objections, the law, or any sense of fairness.

They don't have to. The NAF is a law unto itself.

Sorry for the ranting here, but I'm pissed about this scam.

You ought to be concerned too, unless you'll never sign a contract with a binding arbitration clause. More and more estential services require these now - good luck in avoiding this.