[process2-comments] RFC-1

 Name: Sean Crandall Organization: Self I agree that cybersquatting should be discouraged, and that clear trademarks should be protected. However, it appears that the WIPO's policy may be too broad to be fair to legitimate owners of websites who are acting in good faith. Although I do not know all of the details of specific cases, it is apparent to me that the policies as defined are very open to abuse, particularly by larger organizations with sufficient cash flow (who generally are the plaintiff, therefore the party choosing the arbitration body, thus giving said arbitration body significant financial pressure to rule for the plaintiff). Before a domain name is forcibly taken from one party, there should be significant evidence that the offending party is truly acting in bad faith either by intending to sell the domain name for a sum significantly greater than its true value, or is clearly attempting to benefit unfairly from the prominence of another organization. The fact that two organizations have similar names, and that organization A is bigger than organization B should NOT be sufficient grounds for A to forcibly take B's top-level domain name (e.g. the example of J. Crew -- While it would be totally fair to take a domain name from a cybersquatter who had reserved the domain Jcrew.com, which is a proper name, the word crew is a simple noun, and should not be protected space). For example, I agree with ruling to take a top-level personal name from somebody who does not bear that name and clearly has no relation to it, but I also agree with the ruling that did not allow British pop star Sting to forcibly take the more ambiguous top-level domain sting.com. In short, it would be nice if history looked at the WIPO as an organization that protected clear violoations of interests, and not as a stooge for whoever had the money.