Public Comment

Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.

Other Comments

[The following comment refers to UDRP "gray area" cases; that is, those cases where trademark infringement is not obvious: Typically, a generic-keyword dotcom domain name being seized via UDRP, because a corporation/lawyer happens to have a trademark matching the same generic-keyword.]

From the registrant point of view, UDRP is fundamentally flawed because "your" generic-keyword dotcom domain name can be taken away, only because a corporation/lawyer matched his brand with a generic word from the dictionary that you happen to contain in your domain name! Language obviously belongs to the public domain and UDRP gives corporations/lawyers a way to hijack your generic-keywrord domain name for merely using words of the common language!: Let's not forget that arbitration panels don't always get it right in their decisions, and you as a registrant aren't constantly checking your email inbox for a legal dispute over your most fundational element of your "internet home" (the domain name of your website/blog)!

UDRP turns the whole Domain Name System, and thus the Internet too, into a ground of quicksands or "a Gulag," as small registrants (like bloggers) are now in danger of losing the most fundational element of their web presence (website/blog): the domain name, which serves as, both, identity and address.

Furthermore, UDRP strongly suggests that the new domain extension program (new gTLDs) was all about corruption and a money grab from the ICANN staff and/or associates!... How? Here is how:

The reasons given by ICANN to launch the new gTLDs program was to address one problem: "all/most domains are taken in the legacy domain extensions, most notably dotcom"... But the UDRP never came to an end after the introduction of the new gTLDs! So, today we see small registrants (i.e. individuals) who lose their generic-keyword dotcom domain name to a corportation/lawyer via UDRP, while the same generic-keyword domain name is sitting unregistered in hundreds of other extensions!... What was the point of the new gTLDs then!!??...

Dotcom domain names were designed (I believe by Jon Postel himself) to be served on a "first come, first served" basis. So, if you are a registrant and have registered a generic-keyword dotcom domain name and a corporation/lawyer comes later and want the same generic-keywords, they should deal with it and go for another domain extension! That's precisely what the new gTLDs were created for, right!?

UDRP should have ceased to exist with the introduction of new gTLDs (if the introduction of new gTLDs was to be really about solving a saturation problem in the legacy domain extensions). What is the point of creating new gTLDs, if UDRP still allows coprporations/lawyers who came late for the domain/domains they want, to expropriate the generic-keyword dotcom domain name from a registrant who came earlier!?

If the new gTLDs had never been launched, maybe UDRP would make sense, as corporations could argue that they are being left out of the Domain Name System... but, now that there are hundreds of domain extensions with so much available in them.... For ICANN to be coherent and consequential, the logical message should be: "listen, corporation, you came late for the dotcom domain name(s) you wanted, too bad! you should have come earlier, as domains are served in a 'first come, first served' basis. Now you go and look for something else; That's what we created hundreds of new extensions for!..."

But, maybe new gTLDs were not really about addressing saturation at the legacy extensions, right? Maybe that was just a pretext!... Maybe new gTLDs for ICANN&friends were about something else!...

Summary of Attachment

UDRP hints ICANN corruption.

Summary of Submission

UDRP hints ICANN corruption.