Re: [council] NCUC statement on Approval Process for Registry Services
- To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] NCUC statement on Approval Process for Registry Services
- From: Marc Schneiders <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:33:03 +0100 (CET)
- Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <005e01c3da78$0df92bb0$d301a8c0@PSEVO>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, at 09:26 [=GMT+0100], Philip Sheppard wrote:
> Marc, while I think there is much to commend in the NCUC statement
> on the registry services I feel impelled to make one remark to
> this part of your statement:
> " we note that ICANN invested most of its effort in protecting
> trademarks ... interests, and has shown very little interest in
> protecting consumers and users".
> ICANN's UDRP is all about protecting consumers and users. The
> typical motivation for a brand owner to seek ownership of a domain
> name is to prevent the bad faith use of the domain name. Bad faith
> use includes consumer fraud and deception. There maybe individual
> cases where other motivations are apparent but please do note that
> the fundamental reason for trademarks at all is as a guarantee of
> origin - and that is a consumer as well as a brand-owner benefit.
So may I conclude that you think ICANN should do consumer protection?
Why has this role so far been limited to trademarks only? Do you think
it could and should be expanded into other areas?