Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Domain Name Dispute Process Called Into Question

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the is-anyone-shocked-by-this? dept.

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."

4 of 88 comments (clear)

  1. yeah, but... by checkitout · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  2. Sounds Familiar? by rakeswell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    --
    All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself. - Johann Sebastian Bach
  3. Re:Reversing cause and effect? by edwdig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Look at 2600 by kiltedtaco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.