ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

I oppose the .net agreement and the URS

  • To: <net-agreement-renewal@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: I oppose the .net agreement and the URS
  • From: "Jason Banks" <jason.banks@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 15:46:25 -0700

First of all the URS has no place in the .net registration agreement.

Second, the URS is a disaster, rife for mischief and abuse.  I agree with
many of the comments from Mr. Lopez and Mr. Jackson.  It is not reasonable
that a trademark holder should be able to simply take a domain without due
process.  I do not believe that the system outlined in URS represents due
process.  The response period is too short, the remedies are too far
reaching, and a single person panel is a horrible idea.  A trademark owner
should have a heavy burden of proof when it comes to such claims as would
potentially disrupt or cripple a legitimate business and their reliance on a
domain name.  Trademarks and patents have been granted for broad, over
reaching claims, for processes that have been in the public domain for
years, and for systems and services that are apparent, and a priori.  Thus,
many of them, form a extremely weak basis for domain names disputes.  Just
because someone spent thousands of dollars getting a registered trademark
does not necessarily entitle them to the use of that mark, especially if the
mark was given in error.  The is a due process for resolving intellectual
property issues.  It is arduous for a reason: so that those with deep
pockets can't just simply steal disputed or disputable property.  

URS is a bad idea and needs to be scuttled.  The willingness to spend a
significant amount of money and time to protect intellectual property is one
of the evidences of the value of that property in the first place.  The
current UDRP, while flawed in some ways, is much better than the proposed

JM Banks

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy