Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
I'm having trouble just transfering my domain PERIOD! God only knows what kind of BS I would get if some mega-corporation decided it wanted my domain. Geesh...look what I got back even when I attempted to comply with this mafia's hoops of fire:
... DO NOT subject yourself to this kind of treatment by using a mafia like that which scrawled its name across the above communication. Treat yourself better than that.
***********
Thank you for contacting VeriSign.
Your fax request was received, however, we have noticed the following problems. The sections marked by an "X" are missing information or have been incorrectly completed. Please make the necessary corrections and resubmit your request.
*The authorization letter should be on the organization's letterhead as stated in our database.
*The authorization letter did not reference a NIC-tracking number and/or a domain name. An example of a NIC-tracking
number is NIC000414.1a2d.
*The authorization letter referenced a NIC-tracking number that is either invalid or incorrect. Please provide the
appropriate NIC-tracking number for your modification request. An example of a NIC-tracking number is NIC000414.1a2d.
*There was not a template attached to the tracking number.
*The authorization letter did not contain a statement of authorization.
*The authorization letter was not signed.
*The authorization letter was not accompanied by a signature and title of an individual with the authorization to legally bind the registrant. This authority is generally held by an officer of the company, or someone with one of the following titles: Owner, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operations Officer, President, Senior Vice President, Vice President, Director, General Manager, General Partner, Managing Director, Sole Proprietor, Treasurer.
*The authorization letter was not accompanied by proof of the registrant's identity, such as a copy of a driver's license, passport, military ID, university ID, etc. Please be sure to enlarge and lighten your photo-copy so that your transmission will be legible.
*The authorization letter was not accompanied by proof of the registrant's address, such as a copy of a utility bill or phone bill that establishes his/her address as stated in our database.
*The fax is missing pages or is illegible.
Due to numerous attempts to corrupt files of domain records by unauthorized persons, if any of the above items is missing the faxed request will not be processed. We regret the inconvenience, however, it is necessary to protect the integrity of our clients' registrations.
Please be sure to re-send your fax to 703-326-7000 with the following information:
a) If the domain is registered to a company, it must be on company letterhead.
b) If the request is to update a contact record or if it is for a domain that is owned by a person , a photo-copy of a state issued ID or passport. Please be sure to enlarge and lighten your photo-copy so that your transmission will be legible.
c) Tracking # of your original email request to our hostmaster---see above
d) Signature and Title of Company Officer or Contact who can take legal responsibility.
e) Phone number and email address.
Best regards,
Kwame Am
VeriSign, Inc.
http://www.networksolutions.com
**********
Whatever you do
I wish Google would somehow formalize the search for domain names, so we could reduce this issue. I only type in domain names for very few sites, where I know the URL by heart. Most of the time I just hit Google and 9 times out of 10 the first suggestion is what I am looking for. Opera has the Google search box next to the URL address box so its almost as easy.
Help fight continental drift.
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
Now, since he makes over $100k a year as a consultant, he gives generously to the EFF and is a vocal opponent of ICANN and their pro-corporatist domain dispute rules. He is actively working for change in the system, and although the road is long, I am confident that someday we will win this battle.
I don't know an sort of count, but if you read The Register frequently, you'll see a LOT of stories about really stupid decision in domain name cases. Like Vivendi Universal won the rights to vivendiuniversalsucks.com because "non-English speakers might not understand what sucks means and get confused." What else... I'm not positive on the details here, but I think Ford won the rights to jaguar.com from some little girl that had a site with hand drawn pictures of jaguars (the animals). I've seen plenty of really stupid decisions, and I certainly get the impression that the vast majority of domains get transferred ownership, no matter how legit they are.
Just look at all the crap 2600 had to go thru. (http://www.2600.com)
v /u s/edu
In my opinion, the entire concept of how domain names are registered has to go. You should only be allowed ONE domain per trademark. None of this
www.ford.com/net/org/biz/mil/gov/us/edu
www.fordcars.com/net/org/biz/mil/gov/us/edu
www.ilikeford.com/net/org/biz/mil/gov/us/edu
www.fordcarsaredangerous.com/net/org/biz/mil/go
This is silly. And im still siting here without a domain because i dont wana pay 20$ a year to some company for one line in their zone file.
http://www.open-rsc.org is the only way to go.
Wait a minute, so you're saying that the people with money are influencing the people with power?
Stop the presses, I don't believe it.
------
Today's Top Deals