removing domains from Wayback Machine

[Deleted member 5660]

Actually, KF, WIPO Panels may (and sometimes do) independently consult and rely on the WAYBACK machine (and other independent archives) to aid them in adjudicating domain name cases. In La Sirena Alimentacion Congelada, S.L. v. Tom Fisher (Case No. D2011-0582), the Panel addressed your point directly. It said:



Regards,

Jonathan

_____________________
Jonathan L. Kramer, Esq.
Kramer Telecom Law Firm, PC
www.UDRP.io
www.TelecomLawFirm.com

Actually, KF, WIPO Panels may (and sometimes do) independently consult and rely on the WAYBACK machine (and other independent archives) to aid them in adjudicating domain name cases. In La Sirena Alimentacion Congelada, S.L. v. Tom Fisher (Case No. D2011-0582), the Panel addressed your point directly. It said:



Regards,

Jonathan

_____________________
Jonathan L. Kramer, Esq.
Kramer Telecom Law Firm, PC
www.UDRP.io
www.TelecomLawFirm.com

Yes, that is an example as to why the UDRP is not a legitimate process. The "panel" in this case is one arbitrator (who is a trademark attorney) who made this self-serving statement and now it is a published decision but that does not make it a legitimate practice. You could very easily have another arbitrator who says the exact opposite and there is no appeal process and the matter never gets resolved unless it is taken to court. Almost any important point in the UDRP process you can find 5 decisions that say one thing and you can five more that say the opposite. The UDRP providers are doing it for profit and the arbitrators are often promoting their trademark law business so the entire process is tainted. The lack of an appeal process means the number of conflicting opinions grows and grows and many issues never get resolved. WIPO does post this list of issues at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview2.0/index.html. But, again, WIPO is making a profit on this process so anything they do is tainted. NAF even used to put out news releases boasting about how many domains they had transferred. This is like a court advertising and claiming it is easy to get a judgement so people should file more cases.


Simply downloading a web page from third party is unverified hearsay and the parties have no opportunity to challenge or verify the "evidence." I have never heard of a real court case where a judge would do their own investigation, present their own (hearsay) evidence in a case, and then not allow the parties to challenge it. John Berryhill had posted a long discussion about this somewhere several years ago but I can't find it.

---------- Post added at 06:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 PM ----------

BTW - notice the arrbitrator points to a WIPO-created document as claimed "authority" to do what she did. This is not a WIPO process, it is an ICANN process, so any authority is supposed to come from ICANN.

 

[Theo]

I agree with KF's statement above but still can't find the practice of Archive.org to be illegitimate. That been said, however, they should offer an easier process to remove archived pages when requested.

 

[Dave Zan]

so any authority is supposed to come from ICANN.

Which ICANN contracted to WIPO since handling intellectual property issues is the latter's specialty. Besides, any court decision from the jurisdiction mentioned in the UDRP-specfic case can override them, if ever.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

I agree with KF's statement above but still can't find the practice of Archive.org to be illegitimate. That been said, however, they should offer an easier process to remove archived pages when requested.

I have already explained it (I guess you are too busy posting thousands of messages and you don't actually read the threads where you post). They are hiding their policies and have been caught lying to people when questioned or they don't answer at all. No legitimate library does that.

 

[Theo]

I have already explained it (I guess you are too busy posting thousands of messages and you don't actually read the threads where you post). They are hiding their policies and have been caught lying to people when questioned or they don't answer at all. No legitimate library does that.

Are you seeking domainer support? Then you have to refrain from making snide comments. I've posted thousands of messages engaging in discussions for years. Obviously, I am wasting my time in this thread; time to unsubscribe.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

Which ICANN contracted to WIPO since handling intellectual property issues is the latter's specialty. Besides, any court decision from the jurisdiction mentioned in the UDRP-specfic case can override them, if ever.

ICANN contracted to WIPO and other providers to conduct the UDRP according to the policy that ICANN set. WIPO is not supposed to change the policy behind the UDRP. Everything WIPO does is supposed to be traced back to ICANN policy. I think the most glaring issue is where WIPO and NAF have expanded the universe UDRP disputes which is supposed to be for a small class of "abusive" registrations. Instead, the providers consider vases that have all kinds of complicated trademark and legal issues. If the providers have an issue with the policy they are supposed to lobby ICANN to change the policy and not take things into their own hands.

Yes, you can take it to court. It is interesting to note that many say the UDRP has no appeal process while ICANN says there is an appeals process by taking it to court. The problem is that not many cases go to court so the entropy of the decision base increases with conflicting decisions instead of decreases as it should. Lawyers have told me the first thing they do when considering litigation of UDRP decicisions is to do a credit check rather than look at the facts of the case.

---------- Post added at 09:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 PM ----------

Are you seeking domainer support? Then you have to refrain from making snide comments. I've posted thousands of messages engaging in discussions for years. Obviously, I am wasting my time in this thread; time to unsubscribe.

I am not seeking anyone's support, I just posted a bit of information that you can take or leave. Most of your posts are pointless like the one you made ealier claiming I don't iunderstand that pages can be saved. I am talking about pulling up pages from years ago so that post makes no sense. You like the Wayback Machine and it is a popular position to support it so you use mob mentality to try to say there is something wrong with me. The issue is the point I am making but you never address that or have any facts.

I laid out the difference between what the Internet Archive is doing and what the Library of Congress is doing. the IA lies to people and keeps their policies secret. The LOC answers all the questions and posts information about all the obvious issues on their web site. That is the difference between a legitimate library and the Internet Archive.

 

[Dale Hubbard]

Keyword Factory: Let's turn this around then. Why don't you suggest how any cacheing system SHOULD work, and why?

 

[Dave Zan]

WIPO is not supposed to change the policy behind the UDRP.

Well, what specifically was changed? If anything, WIPO essentially "added" rather than changed something (if anything at all) to UDRP's policies, namely the devil-in-the-details to address each case. (some of which turned out arguably unique...)

Anyway, at least you gave them your thoughts. They don't actually have to act on them right away, you know, though it's up to them if what you said has some debatable merit.

Meantime, you just do what you can, yet continue enjoying life.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

Keyword Factory: Let's turn this around then. Why don't you suggest how any cacheing system SHOULD work, and why?

They need to disclose all their policies and methods, foster a debate, and then the copyright laws need to be changed to specifically address this issue so there are not all these questions. See http://www.btlj.org/data/review/24-437-473.pdf.

---------- Post added at 10:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 AM ----------

Well, what specifically was changed? If anything, WIPO essentially "added" rather than changed something (if anything at all) to UDRP's policies, namely the devil-in-the-details to address each case. (some of which turned out arguably unique...)

Anyway, at least you gave them your thoughts. They don't actually have to act on them right away, you know, though it's up to them if what you said has some debatable merit.

Meantime, you just do what you can, yet continue enjoying life.

Generally, what the providers did was expand the scope of the UDRP. As far as the Wayback machine they allow the arbitrators to gather and collect evidence in a way that would not generally be permitted in a court setting or even an arbitration setting. The complainant should present the evidence and the domain owner can refute it. I believe the process is discussed in the ICANN stafff reports of the UDRP. In any case anything they do should point back to some ICANN authority. I also heard rumors years ago that several arbitrators were fired for issuing decisions that were so far over the top they were not credible.

In any case looking into all this stuff gives me info for my web sites at copyrights.org and trademarks.org.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

I am following the money and it is starting to come into focus. According to their last tax return the Internet Archive took in over $8 Million in "crawling and hosting" services. It looks like they are selling the data. Maybe to Alexa? Maybe to Copyright and trademark lawyers? It seems this is why they push back on removal requests because whoever is paying for these services maybe won't pay as much if there are major gaps?