|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| [[Image:UnderConstruction.png]] | | #REDIRECT [[Trademark Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure]] |
| | |
| '''PDDM''' is the abbreviation for '''Post-Delegation Dispute Mechanism'''. The Implementation Recommendation Team or the IRT, as a part of its process and by considering the various public comments to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ([[ICANN]]) led the foundation for the creation of the post-delegation dispute mechanism. It was mostly created to challenge the various activities related to the new [[gTLD]] registries.
| |
| | |
| The IRT was of the view that the PDDM is one of the vital ingredients for the rights protection mechanism as there has been no progress made in the enforcement.<ref name="link1">[http://www.ficpi.org/library/10MunichFORUM/7-3_Cohen-outline.pdf ficpi.org]</ref>
| |
| | |
| == Role of the PDDM ==
| |
| | |
| The PDDM is mostly designed to counter the following miscreants:
| |
| | |
| Registry operators who have a bad faith or are mostly intended towards making profits through the systemic registration or by violating the domain names or are engaged in systemic cybersquatting in the registry operator’s TLD. Even though the definition of cybersquatting has not been specified, the IRT states that this mechanism will not be used against the registry operators, which violate the domain names within the TLDs where the registry operators have not had a bad faith or intent to profit from the infringing names. <ref name="link1">[http://www.ficpi.org/library/10MunichFORUM/7-3_Cohen-outline.pdf ficpi.org]</ref>
| |
| | |
| == Criticism of the PDDM ==
| |
| | |
| The PDDM had to face a lot of criticism from several elements. The Registries Constituency (RyC) was the most active member in criticizing the PDDM on several aspects. The Registries Constituency had a different view about PDDM and stated that the PDDM was designed to combat the Registry operators that operate a TLD in a way which is inconsistent with the warranties and representations with respect to the [[IP|intellectual property]] protection. <ref name="link2">[http://www.pir.org/pdf/Comments_RyC_6Jul2009.pdf pir.org]</ref>
| |
| | |
| == PDDM and ICANN ==
| |
| | |
| The Registry Constituency was of the view that the PDDM was completely unnecessary and was setup mostly due to the lack of confidence of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) that it will enforce some existing protections. The [[RyC]] was also of the view that the PDDM will shift away the responsibility of enforcing the registry away from it as well as from the ICANN. <ref name="link2">[http://www.pir.org/pdf/Comments_RyC_6Jul2009.pdf pir.org]</ref>
| |
| | |
| == References ==
| |
| | |
| {{reflist}}
| |
| | |
| [[category: glossary]]
| |
| | |
| __NOTOC__
| |
