Africa (3 candidates)

* Calvin Browne

(d)

Speculators in domain names are as greedy and nasty as futures traders. I really don't mind if people want to gamble on the future. Note - a speculator is not a cybersquatter (see answer 3).

(d)

Most of the UDRP rulings seem to involve clear cybersquatting see answer 3). I would need to do a comprehensive analysis of the UDRP rulings before I could see exactly which way they tend. An applicant that brings a frivolous application should face some kind of sanction.

(d)

I define cybersquatting as the intentional registration of a domain name that is similar or the same as an existing name (be it company, trademark etc.) for the sole purpose extorting money from that entity. Most societies treat extortion with contempt.

(d)

New TLD's are needed. I think the most important policy to adopt here is: don't break the existing TLD's. Most people forget we have several more TLD's than just .com, .net and .org ie. the ccTLD's. I believe that exploiting natural monopolies is immoral.

(d)

I think the issues raised here are far more complicated than would be indicated by the four answers suggested here. And 'DNS' is a much bigger issue than indicated by the 3 letters.

** Alan Levin

(d)

As long as this is done maturely and with adherence to acceptable use policies, I broadly support the creation of new economic value such as the after market domain industry. I feel that this is something which builds the industry and can empower entrepreneurship.

(b)

The rulings (currently) seem evenhanded enough to me.

(d)

I am against cybersquatting. I am not sure how best to combat it.

(d)

A combination of (a) and (b)

(d)

I believe to say 'The system works as it is', is too general. The system has much to be desired for many cctld's which do not work. Technically the system works, but there is much that community effort can do to improve wider functionality, security and robustness.

** Nii Quaynor

(d)

Market forces manage hoarders and entrepreneurism very well.

(d)

Build consensus gradually on the Policy and its implementation.

(d)

Develop the appropriate legal systems for the new economy.

(d)

There are many unknowns. We should be open about it but be progressive and agile.

(d)

Evolve the existing system cautiously.

Asia/Australia/Pacific (5 candidates)

** Johannes Chiang

(?)

(?)

(?)

(?)

(?)

** Lulin Gao

(b)

I'm not particularly interested personally, but don't question its legitimacy.

(b)

The rulings (currently) seem evenhanded enough to me.

(a)

First-come first-serve, that's my motto - let the court systems handle it. There are laws already in place.

(c

I prefer few new TLD's, and strict trademark policing by the registries.

(b)

The system works as it is - why change something that isn't broken?

** Masanobu Katoh

(?)

(?)

(?)

(?)

(?)

* HongJie Li

(b)

I'm not particularly interested personally, but don't question its legitimacy.

(c)

The UDRP doesn't go far enough -- I can't wait for stronger WIPO rules to come out.

(c)

Greedy hoarders, hijackers and extortionists - the UDRP and current legislation aren't strong enough.

(a)

Its so controversial, let's keep some limits and registry uniformity too.

(b)

The system works as it is - why change something that isn't broken?

** Sureswaran Ramadass

(?)

(?)

(?)

(?)

(?)

Europe (7 candidates)

** Maria Livanos Cattaui

(?)

(?)

(?)

(?)

(?)

** Alf Hansen

(d)

I'm not particularly interested personally. Depends on what you mean with "speculation".

(d)

UDRP is a useful mechanism. It is much more effective than a law suite. I have not studied the Rulings to date.

(d)

First-come first-serve is a good principle. There are laws already in place. Laws can be improved.

(d)

It is controversial, let's keep some limits.

(d)

The system works quite well as it is - let us improve it gradually. Comment: I think it is wrong to ask people to endorse a nominee based on these questions only. This comment should also be published.

* Jeanette Hofman

(d)

I have no sympathy whatsoever for speculators, regardless of what they deal with. However, unlike other speculative objects domain names can be easily multiplied. A significant expansion of the name space would pull the rug out from under domain name resale speculation.

(d)

UDRP is questionable for two reasons. For one, it lacks any democratic legitimacy. Individual domain name holders play no role in the process. For another, bad faith is a controversial, ill-defined topic. Thus, UDRP actually defines what it is expected to judge upon.

(d)

Like bad faith, cybersquatting has become a politically contested terrain. The term should be restricted to the registration of domain names for the single purpose of selling them. This, in my view, is an abuse of a public resource.

(d)

The name space should expand. Better search engines and freely accessible directory systems able to reflect real and brand names would be helpful to avoid confusion.

(d)

The DNS doesn't scale in its present form. In order to accommodate all future Internet users the DNS must evolve. A first step would be to get rid of the misleading idea that a domain name constitutes an address.

* Andy Mueller-Maguhn

(?)

(?)

(?)

(?)

(?)

** Oliver Muron

(?)

(?)

(?)

(?)

(?)

** Oliver Popov

(?)

(?)

(?)

(?)

(?)

** Winfried Schuller

(d)

Domain name speculation is not in the interest of the vast majority of Internet users and therefore should be avoided if possible.

(b)

The rulings seem evenhanded enough to me.

(d)

UDRP is enough for the moment to solve Cybersquatting issues (There is an overlapping area between malicious usage of a domain name and freedom of speech issues, which should be handeld with care) The main problem is not so much around Cybersquatting, but around offering the vast majority of internet user adequate access to domain names.

(d)

A limited number should be used as a start, additional could be added later. There is no "natural" limit on domain names. But complicated domain names and billions of domain names will render the use of domain names to find something or somebody on the net useless.

(d)

In the long run, additional mechanism are needed( like combinations of indexed an searchable directories, search engines, the Common name Resolution Protocol approach of the IETF seems a good approach) A fully functional WHOIS database is important for the stabilitiy of the net. Data privacy issues must be seriously taken into account.

Latin America/Caribbean
(5 candidates)

** Raul Echeberria

(?)

(?)

(?)

(?)

(?)

** Ivan Moura Campos

(?)

(?)

(?)

(?)

(?)

* Aluisio S. Nunes

(a)

I love it, its great to see that entrepreneurism thrives.

(d)

WIPO and UDRP are important to control system. Why not connect both?

(d)

Any kind of model may break, but only trademark offers warranty.

(d)

New TLDs with control and responsibility. I agree.

(d)

Control is necessary to avoid the system being broken.

** Particio Poblete

(?)

(?)

(?)

(?)

(?)

* Claudio Silva Menezes

(?)

(?)

(?)

(?)

(?)

North America
(7 candidates)

* Karl Auerbach

(d)

Speculation in domain names is a legitimate activity, just as is speculation in art, land, securities, crop futures, or antiques.

(d)

There should not be a UDRP. Existing law is adequate protection for trademarks.

(a)

First-come first-serve, that's my motto - let the court systems handle it. There are laws already in place.

(a)

There is no technical reason for quantity limitations or rules against proprietary TLD registries, I'd rather let the marketplace decide.

(a)

Eliminate domain name registration contract revocation language, and give users control over their domain names, and recourse for theft and loss.

** Lyman Chapin

(d)

Domain name speculation is neither inherently evil nor particularly admirable; I dislike it in the same way that I dislike other opportunistic activities that seek short-term personal gain at the expense of long-term community interests. The "community interests" in this case are not the trademark rights of corporations. The Internet is a new and incredibly important space, and we are going to live for a long time with the consequences of decisions that are made today. Speculators provoke corporations and governments to pursue defensive legal strategies that are likely to saddle us with poorly-considered laws and regulations.

(d)

Most (not all) of the UDRP *outcomes* to date do not offend either common sense or (at least my) sense of fairness; but some of the *rulings* demonstrate how little we understand about how (or even whether) to apply traditional notions of trademark and trademark protection to the Internet world of domain names and URLs. As I very much doubt that the results of a dispute-resolution process managed by the U.S. Department of Commerce would be any better, I am inclined to spend more energy trying to improve the way in which the UDRP is applied than ridiculing it or the people who are trying to administer it.

(d)

It's easy to poke fun (or worse) at "those big corporations" scrambling to protect their precious brands and trademarks; and yes, the "Trademark Cyberpiracy Prevention Act" was rushed through last year in a legislative panic (we should be surprised by this?), and is not the model of common sense that we would surely have in a more perfect world. On the other hand, there's nothing honorable about genuine cybersquatting (unless you consider corporation-bashing to be honorable by definition, because corporations are evil oppressors and exploiters of the people, etc.), which is simply an attempt to profit from someone else's labor - in this case, the investment that companies have made in their brands and trademarks. It's not at all clear that companies have an exclusive "natural right" to the SLD names that coincide with their trademarks, if only because trademark protection in the non-Internet world doesn't work that way (Barbara Simons wrote an excellent, concise summary of this for the March 2000 issue of Communications of the ACM - see this article.) I also realize that for some people, "attempt[ing] to profit from someone else's labor" is just a description of what corporations do as a matter of course. But no, I don't want to "let the court systems handle it" - I think we can do better than that. David Post's suggestion that we try using juries (rather than arbitration panels) to reach common-sense interpretations of the UDRP might be a way for the Internet community to develop a better understanding of how all of this should work; this and other ideas should be explored before we turn it over to the lawyers.

(d)

It's almost impossible to imagine ICANN agreeing to allow the immediate introduction of an unlimited, or even "large," number of new TLDs without a powerful sunrise provision across the board. This would be unfortunate, because although I believe that a sunrise provision is a good idea for specific new (restricted or unrestricted) TLDs, such as ".biz" or ".firm," it is certainly not a good idea for *all* TLDs. I agree with ICANN's expected go-slow approach, introducing a small number of carefully selected TLDs and watching to see what happens. Although this looks to a dynamist like just another attempt to pre-program the future to be safe and predictable, the TLDs ICANN is expected to create are not likely to require sunrise restrictions, and we will have the opportunity to focus on the new dynamics of registry creation and competition rather than legal challenges, injunctions, and lengthy court proceedings.

(d)

Whether or not revocation is part of domain name registration contracts, trademark owners can challenge domain name owners in court, and the court may order the domain name owner to yield to the trademark owner. My answer to this question would be (a) except that neither ICANN nor a domain name registry has the legal authority to "give users control over their domain names."

** Donald Langenberg

(?)

(?)

(?)

(?)

(?)

** Lawrence Lessig

(b)

I'm not particularly interested personally, but don't question its legitimacy.

(d)

I don't think it is appropriate to second guess the results in specific cases, but I believe it is inappropriate for ICANN to require a single form for all domains.

(d)

I don't question the legitimate role of trademark law in regulating the use of trademarks. But I believe this is a role for law, not ICANN. Not all "squatting" is a trademark violation, and the political process, outside of ICANN, needs more time to work through these questions.

(a)

There is no technical reason for quantity limitations or rules against proprietary TLD registries, I'd rather let the marketplace decide.

(d)

There is too much packed into this question. I favor a diverse set of policies covering domain names, and an opportunity for the market to evaluate which work best. Single solutions insisted on by ICANN are a mistake; minimizing monopoly power should be the objective.

** Harris Miller

(d)

The rational value of market mechanisms is the effiencies gained in resource allocation. Aftermarkets are also in some cases healthy and positive. I have little regard for speculators.

(d)

I think the rulings are by and large a credit to the premise of the UDRP -- the expedited review of a dispute under specific and narrowly tailored circumstances. Do I agree with each and every decision? Probably not, but I have not read even more than a portion of all of the decisions.

(d)

Cyber squatting is not helpful to the Net community and to users overall.

(d)

I support new TLDs to be introduced on a measured basis to ensure stability of the root servers and the Net.

(d)

The system currently in place is not without detractors and flaws. I think the proper approach would be to address such flaws and seek improvement. I do not support the elimination of domain name registration contract revocation language.

* Barbara Simons

(d)

I believe that this issue will disappear, once the artificial scarcity of domain names is eliminated by creating large numbers of top level domains. The problem is not speculation; the problem is artificial scarcity.

(d)

ICANN should not be responsible for enforcing trademark law. Given the compromise that was struck and the political realities with which we are confronted, we need to work so that the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy is applied *only* in the case of extreme bad faith registration of a registered trademark for the purpose of resale to the trademark owner or to a direct competitor. All other disputes should be handled by the courts. We also need to monitor the arbitration process, which is why I have supported a study for evaluating the UDRP decision making process.

(d)

Cybersquatting is a term that is being misused and, I fear, redefined by the press. In fact, it should be applied only to the very small number of cases of individuals who have gone out of their way to register domain names using well known brand names, particularly coined and fanciful terms.

(a)

There is no technical reason for quantity limitations or rules against proprietary TLD registries, I'd rather let the marketplace decide.

(a)

Eliminate domain name registration contract revocation language, and give users control over their domain names, and recourse for theft and loss.

* Emerson Tiller, J.D., Ph.D.

(a)

I love it, its great to see that entrepreneurism thrives.

(d)

Although many arbitrators have been fair-minded, there have been many problems with the UDRP rulings to date and reform is needed. Cases involving crew.com, esquire.com, corinthians.com illustrate the problems. I'd reform the UDRP and create a cheap appeals process within ICANN. It would bring consistency and accountability and act as a check against individual arbitrators who have a biased notion as to what the UDRP,however flawed, means.

(d)

First come, First-serve should be the presumptive norm. But I don't think that the court system needs to be used for everything. If ICANN policy and the system of arbitration can be adequately reformed (and I acknowledge that such won't be easy), I believe that an efficient and fair arbitration system could work to everyone's benefit.

(a)

There is no technical reason for quantity limitations or rules against proprietary TLD registries, I rather let the marketplace decide.

(d)

I believe that individual domain name registrants should have more freedom in constructing their contracts. But if mandatory arbitration remains in the contract, at least the ability to forum shop (complainant having its choice among arbitration services) should be stopped. I also do not believe that trademark owners should have first choice over domains because the marks may have more than one use -- especially generic marks like crew.com. And of course, non-trademark owners should not be limited to one domain name each.