DeweyW - 1:22 pm on Apr 6, 2009 (gmt 0)

Once such a system is in place, what is to prevent it from being used on ALL domains?

ICANN has always went for ways to do things that lessen their involvement and overhead. Why have two separate procedures if one makes things faster and easier for ICANN?

Trademark abuse can be subjective: take for instance the case of "Nissan.com". There was no trademark abuse, but the big company tried to get the little company to forfeit their domain. This would be much easier with the proposed system.

With this new ruling, if I register www.XYZ.com and a year later a bigger company comes along and tradmarks XYZ, they could take my domain. Is it trademark abuse if I had the domain first?

I also agree that email is NOT the way to handle a system where the default is: you lose. I noticed that the WIPO sent their proposal by email AND COURIER - not email alone.

A simple change in the system would be to make the default - no change of ownership. This solves most of the lost email problems and requires more of the opposing party rather than the domain owner.