ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [bc-gnso] IRT Final report

  • To: BC gnso <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] IRT Final report
  • From: George Kirikos <icann@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 08:35:32 -0400


On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 3:37 AM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
> Without at this point discussing the content of the Final IRT report I would
> recommend all BC members read the excellent open letter (a couple of pages 
> only)
> at the front of the report.  This outlines clearly the objective of the IRT 
> work
> (avoidance of harm for users).
> If there are BC members that disagree with this objective (leave aside process
> and outcome for now) it would be good to know as that would be a fundamental
> diversion from existing BC policy.

My company disagrees with the "open letter" and do not consider it
"excellent" at all. We consider it a political letter, mere

For example, they wrote:

"For most of us, it is a reasonable assumption that the owner of a
trademark in the real world that you rely on to provide authentic
goods or services is also the owner of a website that you find under
the corresponding domain name."

The way I read that statement, the "us" refers to pro-complainant TM
attorneys who truly believe that even the most obscure TMs are
"famous" and should trump any domain name ownership rules, even if the
domain was created 10 years before the TM, even if it is in a
different country than the TM, and even if it is being used in an
entirely different class of goods/services than the TM.

This is why they use language like "tapestry", as they simply don't
want any changes to occur to the report as they believe it is already
a balanced solution. In a tapestry, if you pull one thread from it, it
unravels and falls apart. They've presented a "take it or leave it"
solution, knowing ICANN is in a mood to cut any kind of deals it can
in order to bring forward new gTLDs over the objections of the public.

Their proposal is to implement their solution now, and fix things
later. Not only that, *they* (the pro-complainant forces who already
have a huge success rate in UDRPs, and who seek to gain even greater
default rates through lack of notice to registrants through the URS)
are the ones who want sole rights to "fix" things later:

"If our recommendations are adopted, and if new gTLDs are launched, it
could make sense for ICANN to ask a team qualified in trademark
protection to take a fresh look at the impact of our recommendations
after 18-24 months to determine whether they can be improved."

We do not believe that "due process" and strong property rights for
domain name registrants are a "fundamental diversion from existing BC
policy." It would undermine the stability and security of business and
ecommerce on the internet if the rule of law was undermined by such
extreme measures by a self-selected minority as those in the IRT.

The IRT stated:

"Lurking in the darkest corners of cyberspace are the unscrupulous,
the dishonest and the dangerous who prey on the unwary."

Nietzche wrote "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the
process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into
an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."

The IRT has become worse than the monster that they purport to be
fighting, and they lose the moral high ground by their extreme and
unbalanced proposals. Their recommendations and approach was
unscrupulous and intellectually dishonest. Instead of operating in an
open manner, they operated in secret, in darkness. Their
recommendations are dangerous and prey upon the tens of millions of
domain name registrants who are unwary of what is happening, that
their rights are being severely diminished. The BC should oppose the
recommendations, and the secretive non-inclusive process by which they
were created.


Geore Kirikos

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy