NameSilo

Impact of the URS and Unlimited Fee Increases for Registrants in .ORG/BIZ/INFO/ASIA

Labeled as information in Domain Industry News started by GeorgeK, Apr 10, 2019.

Replies:
35
Views:
869

  1. offthehandle

    offthehandle . Gold Account VIP

    Posts:
    4,570
    Likes Received:
    7,668
    Thanks George, the http”s”was missing but found them on their site. I had no idea of these glaring examples of incompetence, if you posted these before on the URS discussion, I never saw them.
    https://www.adrforum.com/domain-dispute/search-decisions

    https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1815095D.htm

    “The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name reverts to a site which informs the user that “This site can’t be located.” Such passive use of the domain name in dispute supports a finding of the requisite bad faith.”

    So this examiner states that non usage is “bad faith”!!!
    No DNS evidence is presented to determine it was parked, any archive.org links, etc, if it was blocked by a firewall in China, etc. simply a suspension.

    https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1785973D.htm

    “Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or


    b. Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the trademark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or


    c. Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or


    d. By using the disputed domain name Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

    Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith since Respondent is not making active use of the disputed domain name.”

    So non usage, according to the ADR the act of investing in LLL domain names is bad faith. Isn’t this decision like going back in time 20 years for the earliest cybersquatting like disputes?
     
    The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
  2. GeorgeK

    GeorgeK Leap.com PRO VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    246
    Likes Received:
    983
    Yes, they're totally misinterpreting the "passive holding" doctrine, expanding it in favour of TM interests. Passive holding is only supposed to apply if there's no conceivable good faith usage. See:

    https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/#item33

     
  3. offthehandle

    offthehandle . Gold Account VIP

    Posts:
    4,570
    Likes Received:
    7,668
    When historically back in time was the ADR allowed to arbitrate domains? I thought they were experienced, or are not really impartial since they are all TM lawyers from the “same clubs”? Or some variation of that. Are there any truly independent legal “forums” for resolving domain disputes?
    I know you objected to the newest WIPO guy being nominated on the RPM, he was voted in, but not sure the true reason (assume he is TM lawyer too?) and if there is perhaps something about that whole incident that might be something you can share? I didn’t understand the whole picture. Or... If you don’t want to comment, I understand. The history you know from your years of experience of studying the UDRP process, politics, etc. might be a subject too for your blog, just an idea.
     
  4. GeorgeK

    GeorgeK Leap.com PRO VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    246
    Likes Received:
    983
    UDRP began in 1999, see the history at:

    https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/schedule-2012-02-25-en

    Courts are neutral.

    I didn't believe Brian Beckham of WIPO would be a neutral chair, so that's why I voted against him being a chair in the RPM PDP working group. The fact that WIPO would not list various UDRP-related court cases, even when directly asked:

    https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-April/002940.html
    https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-May/003058.html
    https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-May/003059.html

    was consistent with that lack of neutrality. Later, WIPO retaliated by taking down my company's court case from their site!

    https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-June/003147.html
     
  5. mwzd

    mwzd Top Member VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    8,966
    Likes Received:
    1,094
    It takes 5 minutes to voice your objection and anyone can do so, if everyone here on NP just took the time, it might make things tougher for ICANN to brush this under the table.

    If you want to object to .ORG price increases, comment here-
    https://www.icann.org/public-comments/org-renewal-2019-03-18-en/mail_form

    If you want to object to .INFO price increases, comment here-
    https://www.icann.org/public-comments/info-renewal-2019-03-18-en/mail_form

    If you want to object to .BIZ price increases, comment here-
    https://www.icann.org/public-comments/biz-renewal-2019-04-03-en/mail_form


    Actually all these actions seem to be paving a way for exactly that. Soon ALL gTLDs & sTLDs will have NO PRICE CAPS. Is that what you want? Think we've all seen the way "too big to fail" issues have gone in the past.
     
  6. JayT

    JayT Top Member VIP

    Posts:
    1,631
    Likes Received:
    744
    Raising prices results in many drops and then they hope other people renew them for more, but with 1000's of newtld, no one is going to pay more for some idiot raising prices past what they already are.

    The success of any start-up past a couple years is rare. A lot of people don't even want to pay $10 for a domain renewal. There's already too much distribution in these extensions to raise prices without upsetting a lot of people.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2019 at 9:31 PM
  7. offthehandle

    offthehandle . Gold Account VIP

    Posts:
    4,570
    Likes Received:
    7,668
    Thanks for posting that, it seems this forum rarely has people participating in the Domain Rights protection, at least publicly on the forum. If they are silent, great.

    Meanwhile simultaneously, I find it quite interesting that a dumb thread like Dustie gains attention, nothing can be done but between 4 parties. Op titles the thread slamming Godaddy since someone bought her misspelled domain name, not even worth $500, obviously she can't figure out if she wants to sell it or buy an .Art, and has made mistakes in listing it for sale, pushes the wrong button for pricing, and then NP members chime in with 512 replies and 17493 views and attention is given to this dumb thread. So far, dumb thread of the year.
    https://www.namepros.com/threads/resolved-domain-name-stolen-a-horrible-story-and-a-warning.1132707/

    Meanwhile critical problems of RPM at ICANN, Free speech, domaining rights (Australia), pricing increases like the above, etc. Important business related issues like this one appear to get ignored. Maybe nobody cares.

    This thread in contrast has 728 views and effects anyone who invests in .ORG domains especially.
     
  8. Nat Cohen

    Nat Cohen Member ICA PRO ICA Member VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    7
    Likes Received:
    44
    Great to see this discussion here on the proposal to allow PIR to charge whatever it wants for .org renewals.

    The ICA has been active on this. Earlier today we created an easy-to-use form to help you submit comments on the proposed .org renewal to ICANN. In a few seconds you can have a customized comment letter submitted-

    https://www.internetcommerce.org/say-no-to-price-increases-on-org-domains/
    https://www.internetcommerce.org/comment-org/

    I'd encourage you all to submit comments. Overwhelming public opposition can make a difference.

    George earlier provided a link to the ICA's comment letter to ICANN opposing the .org renewal-

    https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comm.../ICACommenton.orgPricing-April102019-0001.pdf

    Zak Muscovitch, the ICA General Counsel, discussed the issue in depth during the ICA's first ever public policy webcast - https://www.domainsherpa.com/ica-2019q1/

    Earlier today my first ever CircleID article went live, which gives my reasons for opposing the .org renewal - http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190...tions_for_eliminating_caps_on_legacy_domains/

    It is strange times when ICANN staff think it is a great idea to let a registry, that doesn't even provide the registry services themselves, the right to hold a non-profit's online brand hostage and to force the non-profit to pay whatever ransom is demanded for the right to continue to use its own domain.
     
  9. bmugford

    bmugford www.DataCube.com PRO ICA Member VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    8,142
    Likes Received:
    6,971
    Nat, as a fellow ICA member I am appreciative of your efforts.

    The form makes it extremely easy to submit a comment.
    You can also add your own comments as well.

    I submitted a comment earlier today.

    You can read more comments here -
    https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/thread.html

    I would suggest anyone who is a domain investor, or just domain registrant in general, leave a comment on this.

    ICANN is governed by a bottom up, consensus-driven multistakeholder model

    They have abandoned registrants' rights and are only interested in giving handouts to big business. They are not interested in any protections for the millions of domain registrants.

    This is not acceptable for a "public benefit" organization with many stakeholders.
    Domain registrants will have no say, and will be at the complete mercy and whims of the registry.

    Brad
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2019 at 11:51 PM
  10. offthehandle

    offthehandle . Gold Account VIP

    Posts:
    4,570
    Likes Received:
    7,668
    Nice article Nat. Good examples with the RedCross and Electric companies too.
     
  11. mwzd

    mwzd Top Member VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    8,966
    Likes Received:
    1,094
    Very well written Nat, thank you for explaining the issue so succinctly.

    This would make sense, you'll probably have registries willing to operate these legacy gTLDs for pennies on the dollar.

    A no brainer, but that still doesn't address the main issue, why allow it in the first place?
     

Want to reply or ask your own question?

It only takes a minute to sign up – and it's free!

Share This Page

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...