Re: [nc-udrp]uk.com extension

["Harold J. Feld" <hfeld@mediaaccess.org>]

It seems to me ill advised to make policy based on a single case.
To the extent that this may represent some kind of trend, then it should 
perhaps be noted in passing as a development which bears further 
observation.

Furthermore, even if a problem exists, and it is sufficiently widespread 
to warrant a change in a policy of general applicability, then the costs 
of any solution must be equally considered.  The initial work of this TF 
in analyzing successes and problems of application of the UDRP to second 
level domains will provide necessary information for even the 
consideration of issues in the third level domains.

Finally, I observe that this is an area that potentially implicates 
policy areas staked out by the GAC and sovereign governments on the use 
of two and three letter country codes in gTLDs.  While UK is not, I 
believe, an official country code on the ISO 3166-1 list, the 
controversies surrounding this particular area of naming appear to me a 
dangerous diversion for the TF.

As an aside, I'm not sure whether a significant problem could exist in 
this circumstance.  The theory of cybersquatting is based on consumer 
confusion -- the cybersquatter misdirects the user with an identical or 
confusingly similar name.  The .uk commercial second level is ".co". I 
can understand a consumer potentially typing "name.uk.co" instead of 
"name.co.uk"  But to invert the ccTLD and add the .com extension?  This 
seems to me very unlikely to occur -- even to the novice internet user. 
  I presume that even browsers (if there are any) that still 
automatically  append ".com" to entries without a TLD do not do so if 
there is a valid TLD extension (".uk").

Harold

sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com wrote:

> 
> All,
> 
> I'd like to alert the Task Force to a new issue that has been discussed
> within the BC concerning infringement problems arising in  the .uk.com
> extension.  Currently, neither the UDRP nor Nominet provide any form of
> alternative dispute resolution for this extension, which has, not
> surprisingly, resulted in a host of new infringement problems for owners of
> well known marks.  Apparently, the UDRP does not currently cover any domain
> name beyond second-level domains ( e.g.  Aventis.eu.com WIPO case).
> CentralNic, the Registry for the .uk.com  extension, is now stuck acting as
> a "neutral third party" in the middle of third party disputes, but I
> believe they would like a fast and easy way out of this situation.   I
> would like to propose that the Task Force engage in further discussion on
> how the UDRP can potentially address this problem.
> 
> Sarah
> 
> 
> Sarah B. Deutsch
> Vice President & Associate General Counsel
> Verizon Communications
> Phone: 703-351-3044
> Fax:      703-351-3670
> sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>