Is WIPO binding?

[Rockefeller]

I've been looking through the WIPO cases and some of them are mere bull$hit. It leads me to my #1 question, are WIPO cases binding by law? If not, what is the point of them?

What does it take for an attorney to get the WhoIs information from a registrar where the domain name shows "Privacy Protection?"

 

[typist]

are WIPO cases binding by law?

No. You are bound solely by your acceptance of UDRP arbitration in the Terms and Conditions of the contract you entered into with your registrar when you registered the domain.

If not, what is the point of them?

To provide a cheaper and more efficient means of solving disputes than the court system.

What does it take for an attorney to get the WhoIs information from a registrar where the domain name shows "Privacy Protection?"

The same as it takes for everyone else:

1) A simple, ideally well-documented complaint to the registrar/privacy service provider can be enough in many cases. Your chances are particularly good if you can provide proof that the registrant violated the Terms and Conditions of the privacy service agreement.

2) A subpoena should also work


There are far superior methods to protect your privacy than these "privacy services", which are probably much better at bilking you out of money than protecting your privacy. A suitable corporate structure set up with privacy protection in mind would probably be a better choice if you really need to be concerned about this.

If you're interested in actual UDRP compliance, try a google search for Joker + UDRP. Some claim there are flaws in the way ICANN enforces UDRP compliance in their relationship towards registrars.

 

[Rockefeller]

I also just received this reply from Dynadot:

"We require a search warrant or a court subpoena to release customer account information. Since our privacy service does not hide your name, we are able to provide much stronger protection than registrars that hide your name. For full details, please see this article:"

http://www.dynadot.com/resource/article/qa.html?aid=0

 

[typist]

Good point. Any reliable mail forwarding service is better than these "privacy" providers.

 

[Rockefeller]

Good point. Any reliable mail forwarding service is better than these "privacy" providers.

I knew there was a reason I've always went through Dynadot. lol.

I lose so much respect for celebs that sue for their respective domain name. "50 cent" has tens of millions of dollars, just throw 10K over to the holder of G-unit,com and call it a day.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

I've been looking through the WIPO cases and some of them are mere bull$hit. It leads me to my #1 question, are WIPO cases binding by law? If not, what is the point of them?

What does it take for an attorney to get the WhoIs information from a registrar where the domain name shows "Privacy Protection?"

The WIPO cases can be appealed in court.

As for privacy protection issues that has been fully worked out yet see http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0975.html

 

[Rockefeller]

The WIPO cases can be appealed in court.

As for privacy protection issues that has been fully worked out yet see http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0975.html

Interesting...

I can just see "50 cent" pouting on the floor like I school kid. "That mean person has my domain name and I want it back!" What a bitch! Same goes for Jimmy Kimmel and Cedric the "Entertainer!"

 

[typist]

The WIPO cases can be appealed in court.

I'm not sure if you can appeal a decision, as courts usually are supposed to care about laws and facts more than previous arbitration. Nevertheless, you can take anything you want to court, and AFAIK registrars should not enforce UDRP decisions if you take the matter to court within 5 day.

Then again, some courts, even here in Vietnam, have started to enforce supposedly binding arbitration decisions, when asked, even though they are not bound by arbitration decisions themselves (the parties involved in an arbitration can be though).

 

[Rockefeller]

I've seen on alot of the WIPO cases that the respondent never responded. There would be no consequences of these actions?