This kind of BS demonstrates clearly the need for an ICA or some entity to champion the legitimate rights of domain owners against a system which is clearly at best flawed.

With ICA reduced now to 15 members, domain owners in general are getting exactly what they are prepared to pay for…no protection!…no voice at all at ICANN!

What has to happen for domainers to realise that, whilst not perfect, the ICA has protected our arses reasonably well in the past? We certainly need all the help we can get against the forces marshaled against us.

ggg

Exactly !

It would be far easier to organize strong action from halve a dozen parking companies who’s PPC revenues are massive than it would be to organize a few thousand domainers , most of whom probably make very little individually.

Domains/Domainers and PPC are the livelihood of most Parking companies whereas the vast majority of domainers do not make their living purely from domains.

It’s in the parking companies interest to step up and take some kind of control to clarify the rules of the PPC business with wipo.

There is NO logical or realistic reason whatsoever why (non TM infringing) PPC ads should ever be considered not a legitimate use….that it complete LUNACY.

(are they so different from the affiliate advertising model?)

Fix that and PPC might still have a future?

UDRP panelist do not have to follow other cases even if they are higher up and they have said so.

The system is broken so you will continue to get cases that panelist reaches it conclusion first and then comes up with reasoning to back it up

PPC companies are not named in the UDRP’s so they are not involved and cannot defend an action they are no involved in.

By the ppc companies not stepping up, they are allowing their future business erode away. If anything, they have the most at stake here.

Or, are the ppc companies saying by not doing anything, ppc is going to go away anyway?

THAT is the kicker right there. See, if there is NO response, absolutely everything presented by the Complainant is automatically accepted as true.

Now, really, how often is that the case? Every accusation and assertion the Complainant makes is a factualy representation of the complete story? Not likely. But, left undisputed, that is exactly how these proceedings work. That hole right there also allows some of the more creatively ridiculous circular logic used by some of the Panelists to pervert precedence even further, later to be referenced by yet another Panelist later on.

In this case, there were several rebuttals that could have successfully defended the name… but since none were presented, we get this kind of garbage by default.