Reminds of January 2009 WIPO dispute on domain name carlosslimhelu.com
which an Indonesian had registered and threatened to populate it with porn,
unless tycoon Carlos paid him 55 million us dollars. WIPO decided in Carlos
favour. Not everyone, especially in disadvantaged nations, can afford
international dispute processes. Anywho,,,, WIPO made very rich going
forward...
 On Mar 27, 2015 2:37 PM, "Andres Guadamuz" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  I had a class today exactly about this. I was joking to the students if I
> should consider buying andresguadamuz.sucks and andresguadamuz.porn, and we
> had an extensive discussion about whether the above would be defamatory if
> someone else did it. Most of the class thought that you could successfully
> bring up an action in England for defamation just for registering the
> domain.
>
> I tend to agree.
>
> If anything, ICANN has made it easier to bring defamation cases in some
> jurisdicitons, and I'm not sure if this is an improvement on the status
> quo.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andres
>
> --
> Dr Andres Guadamuz
> Senior Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law
> Room G17
> Freeman Centre
> University of Sussex
> Brighton, East Sussex BN1 9QE
>
> Tel. 01273 678629
> http://ssrn.com/author=387238 http://www.technollama.co.uk
>
>
>
> On 26/03/2015 17:59, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>
> Carlos,
>
> By its actions, and its in-actions, ICANN is dangerously close to serving
> up its head of a silver plate to its critics. I do not see how all of this
> will not feed outside attacks on ICANN’s ability, its integrity….and its
> future.
>
> The defensive domain name moves of significant entities such as
> universities qualify them as victims here. It is similar to paying someone
> to not burn down your house. However, while this may possibly be seen as a
> human rights abuse, this also comes dangerously close to activities that
> fall under the United States Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
> Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968), commonly called the "RICO Act".
>
> The RICO act was designed to fight organized crime but the statute as
> written covers illegal activities relating to any enterprise affecting
> interstate or foreign commerce. Of course, the pivotal legal question here
> is whether or not willfully engaging in, and benefiting financially from,
> an enterprise built on defensive domain name registrations can be
> interpreted as “extortion” and hence an illegal activity. Even if it is not
> legally illegal, it does nothing to bolster confidence in the integrity and
> abilities of ICANN. That is the lesson to be learned here.
>
> Sam L.
>
>
> * On 26/03/2015 1:00 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote:*
>
> *A terrible result of a new gTLDs' policy devoid of anti-extortion
> clauses. Hundreds of new gTLDs whose business model is based on $$$ gained
> with almost forceful preemptive registration... All in name of a neoliberal
> credo defending no restrictions for new domains. And we (NCSG/NCUC) have
> been mute on this. *
>
> *Aren't the victims of this extortion a case for our human rights
> advocacy? *
>
> *--c.a. *
>
>
>
>  *-- *
> ------------------------------------------------
> "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured
> in an unjust state" -Confucius
> ------------------------------------------------
> Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar)
> Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3
> email: [log in to unmask]   Skype: slanfranco
> blog:  http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com
> Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852
>
>
>