[35343] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: new.net: yet another dns namespace overlay play
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Gifford)
Wed Mar 7 04:21:51 2001
To: William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: Scott Gifford <sgifford@tir.com>
Date: 07 Mar 2001 04:15:44 -0500
In-Reply-To: William Allen Simpson's message of "Tue, 06 Mar 2001 15:26:00 -0500"
Message-ID: <m38zmic533.fsf@sghome.tir.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com> writes:
> Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, Paul A Vixie wrote:
> > > ICANN's prospective failure is evidently in the mind of the beholder.
> >
> > Besides producing a UDRP that allows trademark interests to convienently
> > reverse-hijack domains
>
> Awhile back, somebody made a similar accusation. So, I spent the
> better part of a weekend reviewing a selection of UDRP decisions.
> Quite frankly, I didn't find a single one that seemed badly reasoned.
>
> Could someone point to a "reverse-hijacked" domain decision?
Assuming that I'm correctly understanding what is meant by
"reverse-hijacked", the most notorious case I'm aware of is
"walmartsucks.com". This domain was taken from an owner serving up
criticism of Wal-Mart, and given to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart apparently
claimed that this domain name was so similar to their actual
trademark, customers could be confused into visiting the wrong site,
and ICANN somehow agreed.
I don't know where the official ICANN ruling is on this, but I recall
seeing it discussed in a number of places at the time. Let me know if
you can't find a reference, and I'll see if I can dig one up.
-----ScottG.
