Net firms reject 'policing role'

[gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx]

I'd like to bring to the attention of the IRT the following article from the 
BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8046028.stm

One should note in particular the notion of "disproportionate response" as it 
relates to the proposed URS. Proper due process, as noted in my company's prior 
comments, should be preserved. Note that under the URS, it isn't even required 
that there be any warning letters preceding the process, but instead there is a 
"rush to judgement" (or indeed, a "rush to default" that favours the 
complainants) that tramples over the rights of legitimate registrants (who 
might have owned a domain for 10 years or longer, and be subject to the 
harassment of the URS). There would not be any way, as proposed, for legitimate 
registrants to whitelist themselves, to demonstrate their good faith 
proactively -- instead, all respondents/registrants are assumed to be criminals 
-- a reversal of the notion of "innocent until PROVEN guilty."

In the UDRP case of Dunlop.com, for example, the panel properly held that the 
complaint should be denied, even though the respondent technically "defaulted", 
but instead filed a court case:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2009/d2009-0367.html

In other words, the URS, as proposed, could be gamed by Complainants, 
especially when targeting very valuable domain names (i.e. not the 5-day old 
typo-domains used for phishing, etc., but in cases where the domain name has 
been registered and in use for years).

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
President
Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.
http://www.leap.com/