ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

Comments on the IRT report regarding the URS and thoughts

  • To: <irt-final-report@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Comments on the IRT report regarding the URS and thoughts
  • From: <Marcus.Jaeger@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:34:41 +0200


after attending the meeting in Sydney, I am taking the chance to give some of 
my thoughts and comments to the final IRT report.

I am a technician who deals on a daily basis with Trademark Infringements, 
scam, phishing attacks, etc. 
against my customer who is a financial institute that operates world wide.
I send out the cease and desist mails, etc. before handing it over to the 
lawyer of them should I have now success at all.
I do not use complicated terms, come straight to the point to ease the pain on 
all sides.
 From all the issues I had so far, there was only once a normal internet user, 
the rest have done things on purpose or 
in bad faith and those are the ~10% that cause ~90% of all the issues I have 
and they need to be shown the borders.
Over the last 2 years I have learned a lot about trademark laws and see in the 
IRT report things that could make things easier.
At the end of the day I really do not see the big issue in the first level but 
in the second level domains.

Therefore I see the URS as a useful tool and useful idea. Now as I have been in 
the Internet industry for close to 20 years
I can see some of the concerns that came up with the time windows for the users 
and how things are send.
Which normal user has a fax number? Sorry not many. The 14 days should maybe be 
extended to give the normal user a bit more time to have that
lawyer talk read by someone else. But the bad guys which cause the problems, 
don't care a single bit as they do not 
even respond, fake the whois data or the emails just get ignored.

The current UDRP does not work from my point one single bit. It works great if 
you want to have a certain domain cause it infringes on your 
trademark and you also want to use it. 
 From many companies I hearing we do not do the UDRP cause we do not want the 
domain. If we do the UDRP than we always get the domain and then 
either keep for protection or delete and 90 days later it all starts over 
again.  Companies do not want all the domains and typos on this planet, these
days are far over. The want a small portfolio, single point of entry for all 
their services and that is it.
The UDRP works fine if you want to keep a domain afterwards, but it is not 
useful if you want to have domains disconnected quickly where a clear
case, I agree this is the hard part, is on hand.
I do agree there is a risk of miss use of the URS by trademark owners and a 
person needs to look at the case first before a domain gets
disconnected, as a clear case is not always a clear case. 
The USR is from my point of view a useful addition to the UDRP but needs to be 
starighten out in some areas.

I am fully aware that 98% of all cease and desist emails gets send from lawyers 
and I might be a rare case where a slightly different approach
is taking. But I have to say with good success rate.

One last comment though, looking at some of comments made and points made at 
the meeting in Sydney, I am seeing lots of bashing and
just no no no this can not be or what ever, but I have not seen any alternative 
solutions been supplied be people. The subject is difficult
and it helps to see the global picture and also have a understanding in the 
legal stuff, technical stuff and be able to look at the normal
end user that have no understanding of this.

kind regards,

Marcus Jaeger
Speaking in a personal capacity

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy