IRT Final Report is an abomination and wholly unbalanced
- To: irt-final-report@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: IRT Final Report is an abomination and wholly unbalanced
- From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 23:03:28 -0700 (PDT)
I was holding out hope that the IRT would actually take into account the public
comments of the non-IP world and create a balanced report. We made extensive
comments in good faith that reflected the needs of responsible registrants:
(the 3rd link in particular discussed a novel approach that would protect ALL
registrants from new gTLD confusion at the top level in an elegant manner, and
was superior to the rehash of old ideas produced by the IRT)
I just finished reading the final report and frankly it is an abomination,
showing total disregard for balanced solutions that protect the rights of
legitimate registrants. Trademark trolls who wish to reverse hijack valuable
domain names would be cheering at this report, if it was implemented without
The URS in particular is an extremist view of trademark rights, tilted in
favour of IP interests compared to the UDRP and beyond what is protected or
recognized by law and due process. It also obfuscates the dual requirement of
BOTH bad faith use AND registration (there are lots of inconsistencies in the
language that seek to weaken the standard to make it "OR" instead of "AND").
The level of defaults will be even higher than the UDRP simply because good
faith registrants never receive actual notice of complaints. Even faxes were
considered too expensive! A 1 page fax, using email-to-fax technology (so it
can easily be automated by the URS provider) would cost less than $1 ANYWHERE
in the world! The IRT team should try sending registered letters in a
statistically valid sample size and measure how long it takes them to be
delivered to different parts of the world -- it can be more than a week, even
from the USA to Canada, let alone from Europe to Canada.
And the URS was said to be a "higher burden" than the UDRP, yet no
consideration was given to the creation date of the domain name! Restricting
the URS to recently registered domains would have demonstrated that the IRT was
showing balance, i.e. only wanting to cover "clear cut" cases of abuse.
Frankly, the IRT team is demonstrating that their tactics and extreme positions
can be even worse than those of the cybersquatters that they decry and detest.
I will do a detailed deconstruction of the final report in the coming weeks
(there are more pressing comments required by the NTIA first), however simply
re-read the comments that I and others submitted previously. They were
Yours very truly,
Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.