NameSilo

EFFECTS EVERYONE: The New ICANN Proposal Called: “Rapid Suspension System”

Located in Domain Industry News, started by companyone, Jun 6, 2009

Replies:
21
Views:
1,589

  1. companyone

    companyone Established Member ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    212
    Likes Received:
    5
    Hi,

    You can help STOP this with a simple email to ICANN!

    Hey Affiliates & DOMAIN OWNERS - Screw You! (pass it on)

    ALL LINKS CAN BE FOUND HERE ~ ARTICLE:Rapid Suspension System
    ALL LINKS CAN BE FOUND HERE ~ ARTICLE:Rapid Suspension System

    ____

    Peace!
    Dan
     
    The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
  2. tristanperry

    tristanperry Domainer & Web/Software Dev VIP Trusted Contest Holder ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    1,962
    Likes Received:
    76
    Oh dear - what the hell is wrong with ICANN? They seem to want to ruin the industry.
     
  3. seven

    seven Top Member VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    77
    Depending on how much "cheap" is, this will never work.
     
  4. shaper

    shaper Established Member ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    231
    Likes Received:
    24
    URS - Uniform Rapid Suspension System

    This appears to open the door wide for reverse hijacking, dirty tricks in ppc campaigns, conflicting trademarks on an international level, and bad faith claims. This also appears to put the burden of proof on the accused rather than the accuser.

    Not Good
     
  5. Premium

    Premium VIP Member VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    3,654
    Likes Received:
    45
    EVERYBODY.. DO YOUR PART AND SEND AN EMAIL TO SAY NO TO THE URS. DO IT BEFORE JULY 6!

    All you have to do is send an email to [email protected] (remember to confirm when you get an email back from them). If everybody takes 5 mins to do this, we can prevent it from happening!

    You can see what others have already posted to ICANN here http://forum.icann.org/lists/irt-final-report/
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2009
  6. MH-Andy

    MH-Andy Established Member ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    216
    Likes Received:
    6
    I've sent my e-mail.
     
  7. Premium

    Premium VIP Member VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    3,654
    Likes Received:
    45
    Good to hear! Hopefully everyone takes the time to do this.
     
  8. cityforums.com

    cityforums.com Established Member ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    1,059
    Likes Received:
    19
    companyone ... let's take an example

    If site.com gets a trademark,

    can they subsequently pick up all the domains

    with the keyword site in in ?




    thanks
     
  9. firefly

    firefly Top Contributor VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    4,051
    Likes Received:
    821
    Dude...they'll be getting whatever they want.

    Cover your generics or your ass...it won't makes a difference. If they want em', they'll get em' with this lovely little piece of shit....I mean legislation.

    Everything is fair game if this comes in. Game over for a lot of people.
     
  10. labrocca

    labrocca Top Member VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    6,421
    Likes Received:
    332
    Ridiculous OP.

    Seems reasonable and clear their intentions. Did you bother to actually read this yourself?

    ICANN has my support in this.

    Looks balanced.

    Something should be done.

    ICANN under it's new leadership appears to be finally "getting it".

    The URS can effectively shut down cybersquatters. I like it.

    Domains were never meant to be an industry.

    That blog post is full of misinformation. Such as the URS would have a site frozen before registrant is notified. That's just not true at all..here is what ICANN says:

     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2009
  11. firefly

    firefly Top Contributor VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    4,051
    Likes Received:
    821
    Sounds fair??

    lol...what drugs are you on? All legal rights instantly stripped. They want to apply it to .com/.net/.org as well.

    Everything...*READ* *EVERYTHING*...will be fair game. Generic terms you think will be safe, won't be. All for $1.50.

    You crack me up.:snaphappy:

    Why bother buying a domain from a domainer, even if it is generic when you can file a complaint for $1.50 with no chance of appeal from the poor sucker you reverse hijacked it from.
     
  12. labrocca

    labrocca Top Member VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    6,421
    Likes Received:
    332
    The URS doesn't allow transfer.

    Name one right stripped. Maybe it's time you read the registration agreement. You don't own the domain. It's a contract you have with the registry which in turn has a contract with ICANN. The registrants rights are not violated here. This is to protect the rights of TM holders against infringers. The problem is that the vast majority of those with TM domains are so-called domainers.

    This will get passed and not because it's unfair. It will get passed because it's the right thing to do to cleanup the registry and remove all these squatters. Something like this has been due for a while. It was just a matter of time.
     
  13. webmoi

    webmoi New Member ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    I oppose the Rapid Suspension System and I've e-mailed ICANN.

    My opinion is that ICANN should NOT be policing domains unless said 'squatter' is representing themselves as the trademark holder in their country. Perhaps we don't 'own' domains as labrocca pointed out, then neither does Reebok or Nike! Corporations should have the foresight to register their dot coms before going live and be willing to purchase the domains they have an objection to.
     
  14. labrocca

    labrocca Top Member VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    6,421
    Likes Received:
    332
    Thank you for making my point about why URS is needed and will get passed. It's domainers such as yourself with attitudes such as yours that are the problem.
     
  15. webmoi

    webmoi New Member ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    My point, Labrocca, is that if a US company goes after a domainer in, say, India who has 'squatted' on 'their' trademark, it is absolutely wrong. First, they are in a totally different jurisdiction, and the standard of living may be totally different where they cannot pay the big bucks and American Corp could pay to clear up such a dispute. This is the world wide web and all domains should be available to all. I am, also, not in favor of names being add to a Globally Protected Marks list unless they are registered in EVERY country. Why should they be added, otherwise? The web needs protection. It is one of the last frontiers we have that is not downtrodden with governmental controls. If anyone has noticed, our fundamental rights, worldwide, are speedily slipping out of our grasp. I support protecting domainers over controlling them.
     
  16. Premium

    Premium VIP Member VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    3,654
    Likes Received:
    45
    labrocca,

    I can't believe that you are supporting the only thing that could RUIN the domain industry. It seems you may know VERY LITTLE of what the URS and ICANN is trying to do. Don't you see this is what ICANN wants you to do? They put in the text that they are going to "solve the most clear-cut cases of trademark abuses, while balancing against the potential for an abuse of the process. "... THEY WANT YOU TO THINK THAT SO YOU DONT OBJECT.

    WHAT THIS REALLY MEANS is...."WE ARE GOING TO STRIP YOUR RIGHTS AND DOMAIN NAMES CAN NOW BE TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU FASTER AND EASIER SO THAT THE CORPORATE GIANTS WIN AND THE SMALL BUSINESS / INDIVIDUAL LOSE! IT IS SIMPLY A BLACKMAIL TOOL AND WE SHOULD ALL BE SENDING IN OUR EMAILS TO REJECT THIS CRAZY IDEA. I CANT BELIEVE IT IS EVEN BEING CONSIDERED.

    I hope you reconsider what you just said..
     
  17. mwzd

    mwzd Top Contributor VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    8,956
    Likes Received:
    1,115
    labrocca, what you're missing is the potential for abuse of lawful registrants.

    If i can get a tm in my country for a particular term, and the domain is worth $2500 or more, why wouldn't i try to get it via URS? Specially when i can club 200 other names and only pay $250?

    The basic precept is good, but like with all things icann, the potential for abuse by rogue tm owners is too immense. You can literally kiss high value sales goodbye if you can't afford to appoint a legal team on a permanent basis.
     
  18. labrocca

    labrocca Top Member VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    6,421
    Likes Received:
    332
    I don't really think the domain industry is all that important imho. I would say protecting trademark holders is more vital. Domainers have a bad reputation and rightfully so.

    I don't think I misunderstand it at all. I read it carefully. I quoted it. I have made clear statements about it. I support it.

    This can happen now with UDRP. The URS allows for quicker resolutions for trademark holders.

    Actually the URS appears to be simpler and cheaper to dispute. It can also only result in a frozen suspended domain and not a transfer. Abuse is going to be minimized by that fact. The only real abuse might be competitor sites using it to get them suspended. That doesn't effect most domainers.

    Your agenda is to protect your domains. To further promote that you are creating a false hysteria. You have no evidence that ICANN is lying or intends to allow abuse. I have their own statement where they clearly address the abuse issue and imho with a satisfactory response.

    Very simply you can't get it. Another person that apparently hasn't read my posts here nor the actual proposal by ICANN. The URS will never result in a transfer.

    Top players have lawyers already in play. This doesn't change that.

    I know domainers are scared of this passing through. It's not unreasonable fear especially if you hold questionable names. But I don't see the need for alarm. It's evident the industry needs more oversight and TM holders need more protection. Realistically this might have the opposite effect on the industry and actually help it grow. There are serious problems with new TLD's are released and TM holders have to spend millions defending their brands. Do you think TM holders are going to allow more TLDs at this rate?

    I think ICANN wants to set this up to stop obvious abuse in a quick and efficient manner. How is that the wrong thing to accomplish?

    I contend I myself might lose domains in URS. I am not innocent. However I do respect the fact that TM holders do have rights and if they want more protection I am understanding of that.

    ICANN has new leadership that has imho shown to work well with the community. Don't these faces look trustworthy?

    ICANN | Board of Directors
     
  19. -REECE-

    -REECE- Top Contributor VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    9,381
    Likes Received:
    534
    I wonder how many companies will try the URS on their competition -- sure seems like an awfully cheap way to potentially destroy them.

    Another reason why domainers should start developing their domains -- get something on there so it looks like you have a legitimate reason (beyond domaining) for owning the domain.
     
  20. Domagon

    Domagon VIP Member VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    1,249
    Likes Received:
    108
    The penalty for abusing URS is laughable...

    On a related note, I presume the 1 year penalty would be applicable to the specifically named complainant only? If so, that would still allow a related party, such as another corporate division, a TM licensee, etc to file a URS on the same domain(s) again in the meantime. And after 1 year, repeat the cycle - easy way to keep their competitors websites down in perpetual URS.

    Many registrants won't know how to properly respond and/or lack the resources to challenge a URS complaint.

    Bottom line is that URS is going to make censorship of internet sites a cinch.

    Ron
     
  21. labrocca

    labrocca Top Member VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    6,421
    Likes Received:
    332
    You presume wrong. From my understanding they will not have the ability to file any URS.

    They'll have to figure it out then same as everything else related to their domains and sites.

    That's a far fetched conclusion and I see no basis for it. Again...did you really read the proposal?
     
  22. Domagon

    Domagon VIP Member VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    1,249
    Likes Received:
    108
    "they" ... does that include a company's other divisions, their TM licensees, etc?

    If you are so sure the answer is "no", please cut and paste the URS policy text that specifically explains who exactly is sanctioned. The complainant only? Related divisions / companies too? And TM Licensees too?

    Again, from my understanding, the 1 year penalty wouldn't preclude other related parties from filing URSes on the same domain(s) within the that same period. See the problem! :rolleyes:

    A large portion of registrants have trouble just changing name servers, and you really believe they'll figure out URS? :lol: :?

    Yes. And the fears of censorship is well justified based on the level of abuse that already occurs with DMCA complaints. With URS, the abuse potential is a magnatude worse than DMCA in that it shuts one's entire domain down.

    There's no doubt many companies will use URS to shut out their competitors; interrupt their business.

    And those critical of various websites will add URS to their weapon arsonal to supress the message of others they don't agree with.

    Don't think that's far-fetched either, because it's already happening with DMCA complaints. And I've experienced such abuse first-hand with some cannabis related websites I run / help out with.

    Ron
     

Want to reply or ask your own question?

It only takes a minute to sign up – and it's free!
NameWorth
  1. NamePros uses cookies and similar technologies. By using this site, you are agreeing to our privacy policy, terms, and use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
Loading...