Hi Derek, Thanks for your reply.
What the criminal will do is register a name similar to another real company name, copy the website, then change the address to another country. Example; stealing a company website complete with name and logo, changing the address to another country and using this domain name and website for money laundering etc.
May I know how IP Clearinghouse would stop this criminal activity? I acknowledge that is not the desirable behavior but the scenario you describe is not what IP Clearinghouse intends to solve. This is also why I support a restricted version of URS.
This is the worst possible example of using this type of procedure!
I think it is fair to put the burden of notification on the trademark / business owner who feels their rights has being violated. There is a operational cost, and that cost cannot be pass on to registrars, registries or ICANN.
In the time that it takes for URS to be successful, a week to "N" weeks, the phishing site can be up and doing what is was designed to do, deceive the internet user. Typically such a site has outlived it's usefulness in under a week.
I agree. This is why I support not having the 14 days, 14 + 7 days requirement in URS but to further reduce that to even shorter, once the notice is legally served.
Now the small business owner suddenly has to protect himself from a swarm of abusive registrations? He will need to hire an international lawyer full time to deal with ignorant registrars etc, all at extreme costs.
It would be very productive in ICANN discussion to have a case study of the problem face by small business owner as you describe. It would be very nice if such a problem is available.
I am sure that Bob of Bobbear would not mind me referencing his excellent website. His website shows everyday usage of domains for criminal intent. The domain names abused are pretty much international and abuses all TLDs etc. if history is to tech us something. Bear in mind that fake documents and other devious methods used, makes a domain registration mechanism no barrier to obtaining such domains. As such we are dealing with events after the registration. The domain name may or may not be imposing on the rights of a real party. http://www.bobbear.co.uk/#2 http://www.bobbear.co.uk/#3
This is an excellent example of why we need URS. And we also need better legal enforcement where ICANN is part of the equation. Perhaps a discussion for the IGF is whether ICANN should also be the net-police? Anyway, back to IP Clearinghouse, the problem you cited aren't the reasons for the proposed IP Clearinghouse. As for URS, your email further enforce my belief we need URS for criminal activities. There is a balance we need to strike - between criminal activities, malicious activities and fair speech. But at the bottomline, we must agree on a very fundamental human right, that one should be considered "innocent before proven guilty". -James Seng