All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Frontier Compliance: A Communication System Emerging in Cyberspace
Unformatted Document Text:  21 with their domain names. To comply with the UDRP system’s implicit suggestions through the decisions, the respondent may hurry to set up the homepage and use the domain actively as well as non-commercially and non-competitively, but it still does not unsure the continuing ownership of his domain name. As a result, the UDRP system has an effect of discouraging those interested in domain names from registering, unless they have ready-to-go plans and proper resources to instantly use the domain names, which have clear real-space association with their names or activities. The ways in which the UDRP system deals with the issue of bad faith of the domain name registrants illustrate the lack of fairness and neutrality of the system. 24 Regarding domain name holders’ activities, panels have considered a vast array of communication between complainants and respondents to be the ground to determine bad faith. For example, if a respondent offered to sell the domain name to the complainant, competitor of the complainant, or a third party, in 97 % of the cases the respondent was determined to have acted in bad faith (Woo, 2002). When a complainant made the initial contact with the domain name holder, but the respondent agreed to the complainant’s offer or suggested a counter-offer, in 84% of the cases the respondent was considered to have acted in bad faith. Interestingly, when the respondent did not respond to the complainant’s offer to see the domain, 80% of the cases bad faith was found. And when the respondent explicitly expressed her unwillingness to sell the domain name, still in more than half of the cases bad faith was found. Thus, not only UDRP proceedings suggest that domain names holders should not treat their domain names as something to be sold, exchanged, or even contemplated for sale, i.e., as a property, but also domain name holders do not have much room to act in order not to be decided to have acted in bad faith. 25 It means that before registering any domain name, people, if they do not want to waste their money and effort involving the name, are encouraged to think carefully about what the UDRP system allows and what not, and comply to the norms that are being newly established by the system. Service Provider The most extraordinary characteristics of the UDRP system regard the fact that each service provider has different decision-making records, and this difference probably has influenced the market shares of each provider. There have been several 24 Discussion of the bad faith factor was provided in detail in a previous section. 25 On the other hand, in the Woo’s study, only 5 proceedings have rejected the complaint based on the panel’s determination that the complaint is an attempt for reverse domain name hijacking. It reveals that the reverse domain name hijacking is only considered under limited circumstances.

Authors: Woo, Jisuk.
first   previous   Page 21 of 27   next   last



background image
21
with their domain names. To comply with the UDRP system’s implicit suggestions
through the decisions, the respondent may hurry to set up the homepage and use the
domain actively as well as non-commercially and non-competitively, but it still does not
unsure the continuing ownership of his domain name. As a result, the UDRP system has
an effect of discouraging those interested in domain names from registering, unless they
have ready-to-go plans and proper resources to instantly use the domain names, which
have clear real-space association with their names or activities.
The ways in which the UDRP system deals with the issue of bad faith of the domain
name registrants illustrate the lack of fairness and neutrality of the system.
24
Regarding
domain name holders’ activities, panels have considered a vast array of communication
between complainants and respondents to be the ground to determine bad faith. For
example, if a respondent offered to sell the domain name to the complainant, competitor
of the complainant, or a third party, in 97 % of the cases the respondent was determined
to have acted in bad faith (Woo, 2002). When a complainant made the initial contact
with the domain name holder, but the respondent agreed to the complainant’s offer or
suggested a counter-offer, in 84% of the cases the respondent was considered to have
acted in bad faith. Interestingly, when the respondent did not respond to the
complainant’s offer to see the domain, 80% of the cases bad faith was found. And when
the respondent explicitly expressed her unwillingness to sell the domain name, still in
more than half of the cases bad faith was found. Thus, not only UDRP proceedings
suggest that domain names holders should not treat their domain names as something to
be sold, exchanged, or even contemplated for sale, i.e., as a property, but also domain
name holders do not have much room to act in order not to be decided to have acted in
bad faith.
25
It means that before registering any domain name, people, if they do not
want to waste their money and effort involving the name, are encouraged to think
carefully about what the UDRP system allows and what not, and comply to the norms
that are being newly established by the system.
Service Provider
The most extraordinary characteristics of the UDRP system regard the fact that
each service provider has different decision-making records, and this difference
probably has influenced the market shares of each provider. There have been several
24
Discussion of the bad faith factor was provided in detail in a previous section.
25
On the other hand, in the Woo’s study, only 5 proceedings have rejected the complaint based on the
panel’s determination that the complaint is an attempt for reverse domain name hijacking. It reveals that
the reverse domain name hijacking is only considered under limited circumstances.


Convention
All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 21 of 27   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.