Re: [discuss] Notes - Names Council Meeting, San Jose - 062599

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

> In the meantime, back to groups A-C.  Actually, could we discuss A-E?
> They're all supposed to report in 3 weeks, aren't they?

no.  i suggest we focus on the content/issues as opposed to when someone
says that they would like to have results.  the meta-discussion only serves
to delay actual consideration of content.  and when that happens, my first
question is who is benefitting.  but that is an internal question, not
something worth discussing publicly, we have sufficient recriminations to
satisfy the most miserable of personalities.

[ purely personal opinion follows ]

in wg a, the two issues that interest me personally are
  o should the wipo dispute resolution process be confined to cybersquatting
    / cyberpiracy, or should it be considerably expanded?
  o should there be a standard dispute resolution process throughout all
    registrars / registries?

on the first point, i think we should do the minimal change to protect
legitimate use.  wipo proposes much new process and law that has not been
well-tested or universally accepted.  in the time since nsi put their
dispute resolution policy in place, the courts have done much to advance
protection against cybersquatting etc.  so i ask what is the minimal change
we can make in public policy to ensure prudent progress and operation of 
the net?

on the second, i have heard only one argument in favor of uniform policy
which i consider cogent.  a low-ball anything-goes registrar would capture
the sleaze/cybersquatter market and make it quite difficult to pursue
sleaze, especially in a multi-national context.  i am undecided, but might
become more convinced if someone were to propose a *minimal* uniform policy
to minimize this problem while not preventing market differentiation and
experimentation in this area.  and i am told that recent court cases have
already made cybersquatting a less viable strategy.  if so, is this
sufficient?  if not, what is the minimal thing we need to help here?

randy