Slashdot Mirror
Latest UDRP Stupidity: Unix.org, Canadian.biz
The Uniform Dispute Resolution Procedure, an expedited process for allowing corporations to steal domain names, continues to be abused as arbitrators stretch the definitions of "cyber-squatting" to any length in order to find for the corporate complainants. Lunenburg writes "Unix.Org, a site that was apparently used for noncommercial discussion of Unix(tm) operating systems, has been ruled a "cybersquatter" by a WIPO panel and given to the X/Open group. In spite of not actually matching any cybersquatting criteria, a WIPO panelist felt that by providing links to commercial sites, Unix.ORG was acting in "bad faith" and thus should be given over to the Open group." And WEFUNK writes "Exploiting an obvious technical error to help build their case, Molson Inc. has been awarded the seemingly generic canadian.biz domain from the original owner who "registered this name because I am Canadian and want to develop a Canadian business directory" and is now appealing to the courts." John Gilmore has a bit of commentary.
Well, I was all set to rant and rave about how evil the WIPO and ICANN['t] and everyone else is. But after reading all of the links above (be honest: did you?), I have to say I'm reconsidering my stance.
I don't know if many of you remember the cybersquatting "name rush," so let me provide some background. Basically, when the web started exploding, there was a small but significant minority that would purchase tons of domain names of major corporations, betting that just a few would bring in a bunch of money when the trademarked domain name was sold back to its rightful owner.
Needless to say, these greedy bastards were ruining it for the rest of us. A few bright spots (Guy Kawasaki's holding mcdonalds.com hostage in exchange for donations to public schools) didn't make up for what was largely the profitting of a few at the expense at anyone else.
The rules put into effect against cybersquatting were necessary to save the web from anarchy and plutocracy. And if those rules were to disappear, or cease to be enforced, then we would be plunged back into that corporate-sponsored hell. These rulings seem terrible to us now, but if we want to save the 'Net, we need to be firm in our application of the rules. Those found in violation need to be held responsible for their actions, or we will find ourselves back in the web of 1996.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
You, sir, are making a common mistake. There is a clear difference between stealing someone's domain name (there is only one Unix.org) and 'stealing' someone's song for your own listening purposes, which does not diminish its value unless you would have otherwise paid for it.
See, taking the domain name away from someone destroys the value to you, as you no longer have it. But copying a song may actually raise the value of the song, and thus the artist, by increasing exposure. This can be true even for mainstream, payola-based artists.
Pay attention, son.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Need to go to ICANN's unix.org? Fine, click a pulldown tab in your Mozilla 2.0 browser and select ICANN, or better yet, type http://icann//unix.org/ . Otherwise, stick with http://freenic//unix.org/ or (if opennic ever decides to dump ICANN peering) http://opennic//unix.org/
Aside from the fact that this would fundamentally break nearly every application that already does DNS through the definitive/de facto root servers (and has for the past 25+ years), I still can't see this working.
Think of this: your long distance carrier is MCI [(333)333-3333]. You want to call your brother, who happens to be on Sprint [(444)444-4444]. Imagine having to call the MIC->Sprint Gateway, before calling him? Or having to dial the "Sprint Prefix" (//freenic). If you forget to do that, you'd get MCI's (444)444-4444 instead of Sprint's (444)444-4444 (which is what you REALLY want).
Not to mention, a third root system catching on, and having to purchase many instances of the same domains within many roots.
OR a resolution system for the various prefixes (how would your machine figure out which root servers to use for the various prefixes?)
These analogies aren't perfect, of course, but I can see how multi-roots would get very annoying and cause even MORE problems.
S
As a proud Canadian (in the original, true, and untrademarked sense) I find Molson's exclusive claim to the word "Canadian" especially ironic when they don't even seem to own the rights to canadian.com or canadian.ca.
Of course, the fact that the apparent technical error (Hex garbage like %2%2 showing up in the registrar's file) played such an important part of this case makes the decision extend beyond IP ownership issues by holding registrants liable for mistakes by their registrars while also raising concern about ICANN's lack of technical competence. Molson deliberately played up this angle to the "judge" by doing a business name search for %2%2 and proposing that since any such business (obviously) doesn't exist, the original owner must be a cybersquatter - even though the registrar seems to admit to the mistake with their database.
I will be actively protesting this decision by drinking my share of some real (although sadly, no longer Canadian owned) Canadian beer along with some pints from our many fine Canadian microbreweries.
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!