Extract from the article:

>According to Marino Porzio, the Chilean arbitrator who 
>issued the ruling for the WIPO, surfers looking for 
>information about Barcelona "would normally expect to 
>reach  some official body or representative of the city of
> Barcelona itself" at Barcelona.com. "Hence [Barcelona.com]
>is definitely taking advantage" of the "confusion of the
>public" and was therefore guilty of bad faith. Further 
evidence, according to the panelist, was the council's
>inquiry about investing in Barcelona.com, as it was
>"evident" that the domain owner planned to obtain payment
>from the council by providing the council with a business
>plan.

This is the problem with these sorts of panels - ad hoc,
arbitary and writing the rules as they go along. Using the
"normally you would expect" argument means you can justify
any "official body" taking over various generic domains.

In any case this is simply not true. Anyone who's been on
the net more that 5 minutes would know that for example,
perth.com may or may not be something about perth western
australia.

Then its a matter of which perth .... and finding "some
official body" is probably the last thing you'd expect.
(because it doesn't happen - try a few) Ditto for all
geographic names. There is simply no substance in Porzio's
statement if you look at the net as it stands today. It may
be how it could have been or how he'd like it to be but its
certainly not how it is.


>The City Council's legal representation,
>PricewaterhouseCoopers, says that the WIPO will use this
>ruling as the foundation for future decisions. Francis
>Gurry, the assistant director general of WIPO, rejected
>that claim. 

F Gurry is wrong here. Of course they will use this as a
precident! They must .... how can they not? Every case from
now on will cite this example and want to get the same
decision just as brisbane council is hoping to do. 


>Gurry said he could not comment on individual decisions,
>but the performance of the arbitrators is constantly under
>review. "The procedure is only designed to deal with
>open-and-shut cases," Gurry said. "That's what they should
>be, but I can't say they are."

He is correct here .. that particular decision is one that
should not have been made under their own mandate - and
one arbitrator from Chile is able to wreak this sort of
decision and the associated costs to the world at large. 


>Barcelona.com said it would appeal to the U.S. courts,
>where the company believes it stands a better chance of
>defending its property rights than in Geneva. 

I hope so.

regards doug



-----------------------------------------------------------
Doug Robb
Clarity Software Pty Ltd      http://clarity.com.au
GPO Box 763                   Phone: 0403 02 2527
Nedlands 6909                 Fax:   (618) 93867564
Australia                     email: doug§clarity.com.au
-----------------------------------------------------------