Re: [ga] UDRP and WIPO panelist bias in plain sight

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Actually, I was being overly generous in suggesting "the panelist came to the 
correct decision". While the complaint was properly rejected, it's a 
miscarriage 

of justice that Reverse Domain Name Hijacking was not found in this case. 

You had:

(1) the domain registered *years* before the complainant even existed

(2) "XIHA" is a common Chinese word owned by a Chinese registrant, and even 
complainant makes clear on their own website that:

http://www.xihalife.com/corp/

"XIHA means 'fun' or 'happy' in Mandarin, and also 'Hip-Hop' in Cantonese."

(3) Complainants pretended not to know Chinese (the language of the 
registration 

agreement, which *should* have been the language of the case) even though (a) 
one of their co-founders is Chinese and (b) their own website trumpets the fact 
they are MULTILINGUAL! "XIHA is the world's first truly multilingual social 
network."

(4) Complainant tried to buy the domain, couldn't agree on price, and then 
filed 
the UDRP as an alternative to a proper business negotiation. That's a clear 
misuse of the policy.

(5) Complainant has no *registered* trademarks!

There are a few good panelists at WIPO and at NAF. But, the rotten apples spoil 
the barrel.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.leap.com/

----- Original Message ----
From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
To: GNSO GA Mailing List <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed, November 10, 2010 11:38:30 AM
Subject: [ga] UDRP and WIPO panelist bias in plain sight


Hi folks,

It's alarming to read decisions like:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2010-1204

which contain the following sentence:

"Based on the evidence available, the Panel regrets that it is unable to 
conclude that the third limb of paragraph 4(a) has been established."

The panelist came to the correct decision, denying the Complaint, however why 
should a supposedly "independent" panel have any feelings whatsoever of 
"regret"????!!!!???? Does ICANN ever even read these decisions, to see why 
registrants are so aghast at the inherent bias demonstrated time and time again 
by UDRP panelists?

ICANN has refused repeatedly to bring the UDRP providers under contract, to 
ensure accountability. It's decisions like these that demonstrate that ICANN 
continues to support bad panelists and bad providers by their lack of action.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.leap.com/