Comments submitted by (Col.) Dr. Rajendra Dalvi, Provost Brahma University of the Hindustan Republican Army, Camp: Luhansk Belogorod (Russian Federation)

Regarding Point 2 of the consultation, it is clear and the data must so reflect it, that the UDRP is tremendously unfair to genuine non-commercial users, without trademarks, using the domains for free speech (example bloggers) or for research or for academic purposes. By raising the straw man (ghost) bogey bogus hollow argument of Chinese cyber squatters under every bed or behind every privacy protected domain name, the trade mark holders have absolutely subverted the UDRP in their favor to snatch (Reverse domain name hijacking) away domains of small users. In this they are aided by armies of corporate lawyers and corruptly biased UDRP providers like WIPO and the mercenary panelists who sing for their supper and who cut their decisions to suit the pipers who pay for their songs.

The Brahma University's attached organisation (India Against Corruption) had one of their domains reverse domain name hijacked by WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION in WIPO case no. D2014-2261. The Panelist was completely biased in favor of the Complainant and allowed the top-tier law firm (who billed Wikimedia US$300,000 for this matter) Jones day to file 17 filings despite only 1 or 2 being allowed under the rules. Despite the Registrant conclusively establishing that the Complainant had submitted 7 FORGED TRADEMARKS, this corrupt panelist only recorded 2 as "expired" (not forged). Coincidentally all the forged trademarks were from the UDRP Provider WIPO who is also Wikimedia's Trademark Agency. The Registrant's objections to the clear conflict of interest where the UDRP provider (who the Complainant selected) is also forging the trademarks being offered in support of Complainant's claim and consequently the Respondent has no faith n the integrity of WIPO's Paneiist were all brushed aside and the panelist's decision goes to great lengths and contortions to distort the truth. In any legal jurisdiction the court would have thrown out the complaint for submitting forgeries in evidence, but strangely the WIPO UDRP panelist did not do so and carried on. ICANN must explain why their policy and rules are silent when such grave falsification of evidence takes place. ICANN must explain how the Panelists are being selected who allow this kind of blatant unfairness in mandatory proceedings. ICANN must explain why evidence is not being formally taken so that Trademark holders and their corporate lawyer pimps cannot do such things in future.

As the proceedings in WIPO case no. D2014-2261 wound on, it became very clear that the UDRP is greatly biased against registrants;' without trademarks who use their domains for genuine non-commercial free speech or research. The cause of action in the matter is that, the Hindustan Republican Army, the global defence army network of the Hindu religionists of which the IAC is a component, had tracked down an English administrator of Wiikpedia, who was instigating the Complainant's hackers against the HRA, at his Manchester flat but only spared him because he was already suffering from a terminal disease which had poisoned his mind. The President of Wikimedia India was also thrashed to within an inch of his life by HRA cadres for repeatedly defaming HRA on Wikipedia websites. All these facts are published on Wikipedia by Wikipedans. Accordingly, there was no doubt that Wikimedia had been provoking HRA long before the UDRP complaint was filed and there were cross complaints against each other in India as well as in UK before local law enforcement. Accordingly, any honest panelist would have closed the UDRP as being brought for purposes of REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING and stopped proceedings. but did the WIPO panelist do so ? He did not , and instead recorded in his decision

"D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

The Respondent has submitted a very substantial amount of material in support of his allegations of bad faith conduct by the Complainant or people purporting to act on its behalf in support of his allegation that the Complainant has brought this Complaint in bad faith sufficient to warrant a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking against the Complainant. Whatever may be the merits of the Respondent’s grievances, they do not go to the substantive issues arising under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. The Complainant’s successful demonstration of the three cumulative requirements under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, therefore, renders the Respondent’s claim for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking moot."

The approach of the biased and unfair UDRP which allows corrupt UDRP panelist to get away with domain theft is clearly contrary to normal legal practice and reflects a topsy turvy Alice in Wonderland situation where Up is Down and Red is Black. In any proper court of law such a petition would be rejected when supported by proven forgeries of trademarks. In any proper court of law an administrative proceeding like UDRP would stop when the past history of criminal cases between parties emerge.

So what happened in this WIPO case no. D2014-2261, as expected the Complainant's paid panelist ordered the domain Registrar to transfer the domain to the Complainant if within 10 days of communication of the decision a court case was not filed by the Registrant. There was a 6 day delay between the date of the decision and its simultaneous commumication to the Registrar and Registrant by WIPO. Within 5 days of receipt of the decision the Registrant (Dr. Sarbajit Roy) sent the court record of filing of a civil suit in India's cyber law court against the Complainant to the Registrar, to ICANN compliance and also to WIPO to stop the transfer of the domain in compliance with UDRP. At this stage things got very murky, WIPO in their naked greed ot grab the domain by hook or by crook, illegally instructed the domain Registrar to count the 10 days from the date of the order and not from the date of disclosure to the parties. Accordingly, the Registrar unilaterally initiated trasfer proceedings for the domain. On receivning the transfer email, the Registrant promptly cancelled it.and then ensued an 18 day slew of cross complaints with Wikimedia filing a case in USA against ICANN and with Wikimedia refusing to enter appearance in the Regsitrant's suit. Ultimately, presumably because Wikimedia and ICANN are both Califormnia based, ICANN itself transferred the domain to Wikimedia, thereby showing up how corrupt, unfair and biased in favour of USA complainants the UDRP is in practice. ICANN'S blatantly illegal action rendered the Registrant's suit infructuous.

However, it is not as if Brahma University or Hindustan Republican Army has lost out to Wikimedia. At HRA's instance the Government of India has served formal legal cybercrime notices to Wikimedia Foundation through India's Embassy in USA that they (and their officers / employees) are liable to be arrested for cybercrime if they step foot in India. Also HRA has been given the nod to dish out vigilante justice against errant Wikipedans who dare to insult HRA or the Indian nation.

It is therefore sincerely hoped that ICANN will stop behaving as an agent of USA imperialism for allowing Porky Pigs like Wikimedia Foundation to grab domains from Indians ever again by such cheap tricks.

This attachment is an addition to the Public Comments to confirm statements in the public comments that revolutionary forces like Hindustan Republican Army are not constrained by cheap legal tricks of global hucksters and can go to any extent to protect our holdings and assets and people.

Regarding Point 2 of the consultation, it is clear and the data must so reflect it, that the UDRP is tremendously unfair to genuine non-commercial users, without trademarks, using the domains for free speech (example bloggers) or for research or for academic purposes. By raising the straw man (ghost) bogey bogus hollow argument of Chinese cyber squatters under every bed or behind every privacy protected domain name, the trade mark holders have absolutely subverted the UDRP in their favor to snatch (Reverse domain name hijacking) away domains of small users. In this they are aided by armies of corporate lawyers and corruptly biased UDRP providers like WIPO and the mercenary panelists who sing for their supper and who cut their decisions to suit the pipers who pay for their songs.

The approach of the biased and unfair UDRP which allows corrupt UDRP panelist to get away with domain theft is clearly contrary to normal legal practice and reflects a topsy turvy Alice in Wonderland situation where Up is Down and Red is Black. In any proper court of law such a petition would be rejected when supported by proven forgeries of trademarks. In any proper court of law an administrative proceeding like UDRP would stop when the past history of criminal cases between parties emerge.

Despite the Registrant conclusively establishing that the Complainant had submitted 7 FORGED TRADEMARKS, the corrupt panelist only recorded 2 as "expired" (ie.not forged). Coincidentally all the forged trademarks were from the UDRP Provider WIPO who is also Wikimedia's Trademark Agency. The Registrant's objections to the clear conflict of interest where the UDRP provider (who the Complainant selected) is also forging the trademarks being offered in support of Complainant's claim and consequently the Respondent has no faith n the integrity of WIPO's Panelist were all brushed aside and the panelist's decision goes to great lengths and contortions to distort the truth.