[ga] Re: WIPO RFC

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Slobodan and all,

  Yes.  And it seems that the ICANN Board is not ignorant of these
gross inconsistencies as well and non-consensus based decisions or
imposed via fiat, policies....  Singapore, Cairo and Yokohama
clearly showed this...

Slobodan Markovic wrote:

> [It seems to me that drafting of the domain dispute
> policy is slowly becoming an exclusive privilege of
> the WIPO... and that ain't good.  :-)  --sloba]
>
> http://www.news.com/Perspectives/Column/0,176,474,00.html?st.ne.per.gif.a
>
> Agency could be coming for your domain name
> August 11, 2000
>
> An international organization has proposed rules under which established
> Web sites could lose the right to use names with common geographical
> terms, such as "Bordeaux."
>
> The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an agency of the
> United Nations, recently opened a comment period on its proposal
> [http://wipo2.wipo.int/process2/rfc/rfc1/].
>
> The current draft of the proposal suggests revoking the domain names of
> Web sites that conflict with "geographical terms," individuals' personal
> names and "tradenames." Tradenames are broader than trademarks and do not
> require trademark registration.
>
> The development is significant because the WIPO first proposed a
> domain-name dispute resolution policy in April of last year. That
> proposal, reduced somewhat in scope, was adopted last December by the
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Net's
> coordinating body.
>
> WIPO subsequently became one of four arbitration bodies approved by ICANN
> to arbitrate cases.
>
> The dispute-resolution policy is written with specific and targeted
> language. It applies only when a domain name has been used in "bad faith."
> ICANN defines bad faith narrowly to apply only to "cybersquatters"--those
> who register multiple names merely to resell them to holders of registered
> trademarks.
>
> Arbitrators in many cases, however, have greatly expanded the policy.
> Domain names have been taken from some legitimate businesses and nonprofit
> organizations that never attempted to resell their names.
>
> For example, a WIPO arbitration panel last April announced a decision to
> take Crew.com, a generic name, from a small-business owner and transfer it
> to J. Crew International, the sportswear manufacturer.
>
> Considering all cases decided between Jan. 1 and June 30, 2000, the WIPO
> transferred domain names from defendants to plaintiffs in 84 percent of
> all cases. A competing body, eResolution, found for the plaintiffs only 47
> percent of the time.
>
> Under ICANN's rules, plaintiffs are allowed to select the arbitration body
> they prefer. The WIPO quickly increased its market share, receiving the
> majority of all cases by the second quarter of 2000.
>
> Here are the definitions of some of the factors that could cause a Web
> site to lose its name under WIPO's proposal:
>
> -- Geographical terms. This includes "a geographical place of origin of a
> product." The example the WIPO gives is "Florida oranges." But many others
> come to mind such as "Maryland crab," "German beer" and so forth.
>
> -- Personal names. Alternatives include applying the new rules to "all
> names," only the "names of famous persons," or the "names of government
> officials or other persons in the public eye."
>
> Perhaps as a precursor to this new policy, a WIPO decision in June
> transferred the domain names Montyroberts.org and Montyroberts.net to
> horse trainer Monty Roberts. The WIPO ordered the transfers, although
> Roberts acknowledged that he held no registered trademark on his name at
> the time.
>
> -- Tradenames. This is perhaps the broadest category. Trademarks must
> identify specific products or services. But tradenames "distinguish a
> business," according to the WIPO proposal, "independently of the goods or
> services that the business offers."
>
> In addition, "tradenames receive protection," the WIPO says, "without the
> obligation of a filing or registration." For this reason, a company you
> had never heard of might have a legal basis to take away your Web site's
> address based on the concept of tradenames.
>
> Already, arbitration cases have ranged far beyond exact matches of
> trademarked words. The proposed rules may create a new class of phrases
> that can threaten the existence of established Web sites.
>
> At this point, the WIPO is seeking comments, which must be received by
> Aug. 15, only on the scope of the proposal. The organization says it will
> publish a new draft Sept. 8, with comments on that document open until
> Nov. 17.
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: Jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1799I@lyris.isoc.org

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html