URS Needs a Lot More Work
- To: <sti-report-2009@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: URS Needs a Lot More Work
- From: "24-7 Outdoors, Inc." <kellypitts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:11:40 -0500
For a policy so fundamental the ease of flow of the mechanics of the
naming system and businesses in general to be so unthoroughly debated and
crafted, it is obvious this URS proposal is still total scratch work cobbled
together for an incomplete, broken approach to solving domain conflict issues.
It is not even at the point of a rough draft because so many issues were not
considered, or at least not given any weight in the ultimate product that ICANN
has put forward.
The worst part is that It seems to me there is little accountablity in the URS
to anyone other than trademark interests. There is simply an absurd bias
towards trademark interests. How is the common person's domain(s) protected
here I ask ? Were are the provisions that fairly protect those persons? How
do individual domain owners benefit from the overreaching, zealous interests of
million dollar corporations who decide they simply want a domain and don't want
to pay for it. There needs to be a system of checks and balances or all out
war over domains will take place. It will be ICANN's legacy that it created a
crazy domain war with countless victims which could of easily been avoided by
using a bit more thought, getting more input from appropriate parties, and
actually listening to them and implementing the best ideas from each to create
a balanced approach. It appears there is absolutely no deterrent for anyone to
NOT file a URS as it stands. It will become a blood sport of sorts in the
intellectual communtiy. The lawyers will say, "Hey......want to steal a
$500,000 domain for about $300? At worst case, it's worth a shot! You'll only
lose $300. Those are better odds than you will ever get gambling in Las
Vegas!" Can you honestly believe this won't happen in countless special
trademark interest and trademark lawyer circles?
It is also absurd that someone can so easily disrupt another's business for a
cheap URS filing fee. Can you imagine ICANN having the ICANN.org site taken
down for a URS filing fee because someone, somewhere on this planet claims
rights to the letters ICANN as their trademark? Don't you think you should
have some retaliatory or dispute rights before having your DNS changed?
Seriously.......who thought of this? Trademark interests? The Business
Constituency? Can it be said this is a fair, balanced approach for all parties
involved in a domain dispute? Again, abusurd and biased beyond control.
For further review of how I feel and what I think about the URS, please refer
to the lawyer, George Kirikos' ICANN response for a much more detailed,
intelligent analysis of the various problems and instablilty this will create
for the domain owners and even the Internet itself. This reflects my views
and concerns regarding the URS proposal quite thoroughly.