[NA-Discuss] Domain hijacking story

[RJ Glass]

This thread has nothing to do with the original issue.
 
The issue is that domain hijacking exists in the namespace and there are no REAL methods to be able to promptly resolve the situation.  Conversely, if someone feels that their trademark is being used by someone who rightfully registers a name within this namespace, there seems to be prompt attention to that matter, with judgement to those with the fattest wallet.
 
Honestly, this is an issue which should have come to light a long time ago.  It is a true weakness of the system.
 
In other words, I move that we either formally address this through the chair, et al., or move along and find another topic.
 
My opinion is that it is a worthwhile topic, sans the mind-numbing banter.
 
RJ Glass
A at L
 
 


>________________________________
>From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>
>To: Seth M Reiss <seth.reiss at lex-ip.com> 
>Cc: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
>Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 9:55 PM
>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain hijacking story
>
>
>> Every domain name has a public interest aspect, just like every trademark
>> does
>
>Try that again. Every registered (in some jurisdiction) mark is
>created through a process create by the public, but not ever string,
>registered by a private party with a private party, in an arbitrary
>location in some arbitrary namespace, compels a public interest.
>
>This is equivalent to asserting that a roulette wheel selecting 63 or
>fewer letters at random from the letters-digits-hyphen set, and
>inserting each sequence in some manner in some form of temporary store
>(we used to use HOSTFILES, and we may yet retire DNS) is somehow,
>rises to a public interest.
>
>You may want to add some useful qualifiers to "every".
>
>It isn't very long ago that registration practices, not mere
>registrations, were determined to be contrary to Consensus Policy, and
>costs imposed that resulted in registrars being de-accredited and
>their interest claim in domains transferred to third parties without
>compensation.
>
>> but admittedly, some
>> domains have almost no public interest concern while others are
>> overwhelmingly of a public interest.
>
>Progress. At least we agree the public interest is not uniformly
>distributed across all possible sequences of length greater than three
>and less than sixty three generated over letters, digits and hyphen
>(or more for those wanting more math joy).
>
>The next step is to address the means of improving, if necessary, the
>_contractual_ means of curing the alleged defect in transfer rules.
>
>There is a real point to this. Whatever NA-DISCUS is, it isn't "lets
>pretend", it is the only vehicle common to a regional element of a
>ByLaws entity of a 501(c)(3) which is empowered by those ByLaws to
>offer limited advice to the Board of the 501(c)(3).
>
>Appealing to the law of the horse or the criminal code of X does not
>illuminate.
>
>Please try and make a case that some random punter complaining that he
>lost his undisclosed secret magic bean -- or whatever his belief in
>his awesome powers of string speculation are, rises to the level of
>action by this body, and not for the reason I've offered earlier, that
>the transfer process may not yet be as intended.
>
>Eric Brunner-Williams
>Eugene, Oregon
>------
>NA-Discuss mailing list
>NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>
>Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org/
>------
>
>
>