[gnso-rpm-wg] Availability of Court for Domain Name owners challenging a URS decision -- false assumption?

claudio di gangi ipcdigangi at gmail.com
Mon Nov 20 14:33:43 UTC 2017


George,

To clarify this one particular point: my reference to "cybersquatters" was
not a description of the losing party in this UDRP case.

I was referring to cybersquatters more generally, and their incentive to
abusively register domains in any jurisdictions that were not bound by the
URS/UDRP procedures.

Best regards,
Claudio


On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 8:49 AM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:

> Hi Claudio,
>
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 8:05 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > My concern is that this would allow cybersquatters the means to register
> > their domains (based either on false WHOIS or an actual P.O. box) in
> those
> > countries and circumvent these ADR procedures.
>
> First, let's try to keep the language neutral, as I did in my initial
> post. We're talking about domain name registrants and trademark
> holders, who have a domain dispute.
>
> From the perspective of a TM holder, the domain name registrant is an
> alleged cybersquatter. From the perspective of a domain name
> registrant, the TM holder is an alleged reverse domain name hijacker.
>
> From the perspective of ICANN and the law, the matter is in dispute
> and undecided. De novo review of the UDRP decision is being sought, to
> have the case decided ***on the merits*** in the national courts. All
> past determinations don't matter....that's the essence of "de novo".
>
> If ICANN has caused an interference in the underlying legal rights of
> the domain name registrant, because it has "flipped the roles" of the
> two parties (which party is the complainant, and which party is the
> defendant), as I discussed in the first post of this thread, then it
> needs to account for this, and eliminate the issue.
>
> This is not about "circumventing these ADR procedures" as you suggest.
> It's about having the case heard in national courts, de novo, on the
> merits. If ICANN has created a problem whereby the domain name
> registrant can't access that de novo review if it's the one
> *initiating* the case in a court of law (i.e. because its claim gets
> struck for lack of cause of action), then the roles need to be
> "flipped back" to what they would have been in the first place (i.e.
> TM holder must initiate the court action, and domain name registrant
> acts as defendant).
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20171120/e5e95839/attachment.html>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list