A right wing hypocrite? Well sky’s still blue so that’s no surprise.

As said Olbermann will have the domain in a month. Matter of fact if memory serves right I believe the only case ever lost when it comes to a “name” domain is the Dustin Diamond case a few years back.

Glynnis, KO is very lucky to have you.

MichelleF said:
Glynnis, How dare you point out our hypocrisies.

Nice of you to be honest.

The law says you have to be a celebrity. I don’t think that can be applied to olbermann

If history is any guide, all signs point to no.

Having had a little real-world experience in UDRP issues myself, I have to completely disagree.

I’ll refer you to my previous comment over in the first thread.

Tucker’s obviously not a cybersquatter, he’s not going to shake down anybody to try to sell the name, he has “legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.” A successful UDRP has to meet three criteria and I can’t envisage a case that will meet all three. (DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer and lawyers are, on occasion, much trickier. Most arbitrators can see through those tricks, though.)

Just to be safe, however, Tucker might want to just give away those @keitholbermann.com email addresses so as to keep it “noncommercial.”

Tucker maybe a little hypocritical , nevertheless HILARIOUS. Mr Thin- Skinned Olbermann is easier to manipulate that anyone . You do one thing or say anything negative about him and his paranoia kicks in and is screaming and yelling. Tucker is playing Keith beautifully.

Does Keith actually ever work ? Beside taping his show ? He is on Twitter ALL day everyday. I’ve heard his 8 man staff do all his work for him .

When did CNN report about the New Black Panthers?

CNN’s ratings may go up because Color of Change is upset with them!

BTW: Congratulations, Tucker, way to go!

Glynnis, your humorless blather smells like the rotten mayonnaise.

yeah. who cares if Tucker loses it in a few weeks? just seeing Olby squirm for a bit is pretty cool. I’m looking forward to Keith’s upcoming ball-bearings-clutched-in-hand “I know who took those strawberries” speech soon…

Ruth – you obviously have a very rich fantasy life. What makes you think (I should stop right there) that KO is squirming? How do know he’s not laughing his ass off, much in the same way that the rest of us laugh at you nincompoops? There’s an answer, but I suspect this is like a test question concerning time travel and quantum physics. I wish you luck.

CRZ said:
If history is any guide, all signs point to no.

Having had a little real-world experience in UDRP issues myself, I have to completely disagree.

I’ll refer you to my previous comment over in the first thread.

Tucker’s obviously not a cybersquatter, he’s not going to shake down anybody to try to sell the name, he has “legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.” A successful UDRP has to meet three criteria and I can’t envisage a case that will meet all three. (DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer and lawyers are, on occasion, much trickier. Most arbitrators can see through those tricks, though.)

Just to be safe, however, Tucker might want to just give away those @keitholbermann.com email addresses so as to keep it “noncommercial.”

How do you figure it doesn’t meet all 3 disputes?

1. Can you explain how Olberass doesn’t have the right to his own name?

2. What’s Carlson’s interest in the domain besides to rip on Olberass?

3. See 2

I have 0% real life experience with domain name issues besides reading on some cases and even I know it’s cut and dry the name will be turned over to Olberass soon….

Jackie_Treehorn said:
I have 0% real life experience with domain name issues

With all due respect…perhaps you should have stopped there, then. :)

I’m sorry I’m harping on and on about this, but it was either post one more time here to make my case and convince nobody, or make my way through that 150-some-odd comment flamefest I’m sure Mediaite’s real proud of over there. Thanks, insomnia!

My main point is, if I’m Tucker and I already hold the domain, when I get that hypothetical dispute, I only have to prove ONE of the three criteria hasn’t been met to keep my domain. So, hypothetically, I’m picking (ii), which is this one (and I hope I have all my blockquote tags correct here and apologise in advance if I don’t):

http://www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/policy.htm#4aii

(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name

Now, this means that hypothetical Keith would have to prove that hypothetical Tucker has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

Fortunately, the UDRP is pretty clear on what this clause exactly means:

http://www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/policy.htm#4c

c. How to Demonstrate Your Rights to and Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name in Responding to a Complaint. When you receive a complaint, you should refer to Paragraph 5 of the Rules of Procedure in determining how your response should be prepared. Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

Those are all “ors” up there, so you only gotta prove ONE of them to make the case. In my opinion – and hopefully yours too, eventually – Tucker pretty much satisfied (i) several different ways yesterday: he made public his intent to use the domain name “in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services,” he redirected it to dailycaller.com and mentioned it was keitholbermann.com; he answered emails coming to the domain name; he talked about future plans for the domain name – sounds like “demonstrable preparations” to me. He can take even further action if you don’t think he’s proven it yet, but I think he’s done more than enough.

So in short, if you prove 4c(i) – and I think he has and I have – you disprove 4a(ii), therefore you disprove the entire complaint. That is ALL it takes. You keep the domain name – and you best remember to renew it on time for the rest of eternity!

Executive version, because I love repeating myself AND hearing the sound of my own typing: If I can prove that criteria 2 isn’t met, IT DOES NOT MATTER whether or not criteria 1 or 3 are met or not. I don’t HAVE to prove or disprove them, because I’ve already disproven 2. “1, 2, and 3″ cannot be proven without 2; therefore the hypothetical arbitrator has to deny Keith’s hypothetical request for a transfer.

Ah, hell, I should have just submitted this to Geekosystem, right? :)

Sorry, Jackie, Mediaite ate my sterling response – too many URLs or too may blockquotes or who knows. (Too many staying up late with insomnia?)

I managed to salvage and repost it over at http://the-w.com/t/41337 if you’re truly, truly bored or dying to find out why I think I’m so right. I manage to go into EXCRUCIATING detail. ;-)

I gave up pissing in the wind to try to bother posting anything in response to the articles on this site. Obviously the trolls rule here. I’ll read the articicles and move on.