[diego_sandoval]

Mr. Scipio had to provide evidence, lose his privacy and justify his use of the domain name to avoid losing it.

That is enough proof to conclude that this UDRP thing is deeply unfair and should not exist.

"First come, first served" is much more fair than this "burden of proof falls on the defendant" nonsense.

We'll have to replace ICANN with something better at some point.

[tgsovlerkhgsel]

UDRP is meant to address obvious, intentional, malicious domain squatting, where someone registers a domain with your trademark and then extorts you for it.

I believe it serves that purpose reasonably well.

There are three criteria that ALL have to be met (1. identical or confusingly similar to your trademark, 2. registrant doesn't have a legitimate reason, 3. registered/used in bad faith). In cases where these are met, it's pretty clear that the owner should be losing the domain.

I think it would make sense to add a rule that someone who issues a spurious UDRP request should be required to pay the domain holder some default amount of compensation for the hassle, but overall, I think this is a process that makes the Internet better, not worse.

[diego_sandoval]

What would have happened if Scipio refused to provide his marriage papers? Would he have lost the domain? How could he know beforehand?

If I was in his position, I would definitely feel the implicit threat of "if you're not willing to provide all the info we're requesting, you lose your domain".

> 2. registrant doesn't have a legitimate reason, 3. registered/used in bad faith

I've read arbitration cases where "The Expert" says (simplifying): "the site is being used for illegal activities, so there's no legitimate use", when no actual court or official institution has declared that the site's content is illegal*. So, you're at the whims of some "Expert's" opinion of what's legitimate, even if it may eventually contradict the actual justice system of your country.

I have very little trust on the competence and fairness of UDRP arbitration.

* And it's not a case where the things are evidently illegal, it's very debatable if they are.

[tgsovlerkhgsel]

> even if it may eventually contradict the actual justice system of your country.

As I understand it, either side can escalate to the justice system in the end.

[fsckboy]

He's worried about his privacy? He reveals all on his website https://www.christian-scipio.de/

[diego_sandoval]

What matters is the general case. We shouldn't be required to expose our personal lives to be able to retain our domain names.