Re: [ga-udrp] WIPO2

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

Dave and all,


  Dave, are you aware that the comment period for the WIPO process
for submitting comments and proposals has expired?  If so, I am wondering
that why at this late (Too late) stage that this forum was created...

DPF wrote:

> RFC3 of WIPO2 has just finished its public comment process and in the
> near future WIPO will make a formal proposal to ICANN.  This should
> hopefully be referred to the DNSO for an attempt to come to a
> consensus on their recommendations.
>
> I thought I'd start the ball rolling with some personal brief comments
> on their key recommendations.  Some of what they have proposed is
> quite good and it will be useful IMO if we can concentrate on the
> parts which are overly intrusive rather than risk being seen as
> opposing the whole thing.
>
> "It is recommended the Cumulative list of INNs in Latin, English,
> French, Russian and Spanish be excluded automatically from the
> possibility of registration as domain names in the open gTLDs."
>
> INNs are International Nonproprietary Names for Pharmaceutical
> Substances.  I have a lot of sympathy for this recommendation as such
> names are of global meaning and serve basically a public (not a
> private good).  They are intended to ensure that a certain class of
> identifiers would be free from appropriation through private rights
> and available for public use
>
> My preference would probably be to have an INN TLD where people know
> they could go for the official information on a substance.  But this
> is some way off so in the meantime I would support such exclusions.
>
> "It is further recommended that any existing registrations of INNs as
> domain names be canceled and that, following such cancellation, such
> INNs be excluded from any further registration."
>
> I have a problem with this part though.  I think a blanket seizure of
> all existing names is overly harsh and that an attempt first be made
> to negotiate the use of such existing names.
>
> "It is considered that mere reliance upon the .int top-level domain
> for the protection of the names and acronyms of IGOs is insufficient
> and it is recommended that additional protection for those names and
> acronyms be established."
>
> I disagree strongly here.  The .int TLD was set up specifically for
> IGOs and trying to protect their names in other TLDs is not needed.
> WHat is the point of having specialised TLDs if they are going to
> register in all other TLDs.
>
> "It is recommended that the names of IGOs protected under the Paris
> Convention and the TRIPS Agreement should be excluded from
> registration in all existing open gTLDs, as well as in all new gTLDs."
>
> Disagree again.  Education is the key about .int.  Just as people have
> got to know that you go to whitehouse.gov not whitehouse.com.  People
> can soon learn that OECD.int is the official OECD site not OECD.net
> for example.
>
> "Thus, a second possibility is to recommend an amended scope for the
> UDRP, to encompass a new and narrow category of claims brought on the
> basis of a personality right. This approach would allow those
> complainants who can assert sufficient distinctiveness in their name
> to take advantage of a dispute-resolution procedure in cases where
> they would meet the required elements. Those elements could include:
>  - name sufficiently distinctive
> - commercial exploitation of the personal name
> - the commercial exploitation must be unauthorized;
> - Bad faith must be demonstrated
> - facts that indicate an intentional effort to take advantage of the
> reputation or goodwill in the personal identity of the person; and
> - The interests of freedom of speech and the press need to be taken
> into account"
>
> I think this is getting into an area where one would need the wisdom
> of Solomon to work out if a name is sufficiently distinctive or not.
> The commercial aspects might be easier to deal with though.
>
> "a third alternative recommendation is to modify the scope of the UDRP
> only in its application to the new TLD, .name. Introduction of a claim
> on the basis of a personality right rather than a trademark, as
> described above, could be applied to registrations in this TLD"
>
> This approach IMO has more merit.  I think the advantages of
> specialised TLDs is that you don't have lots and lots of exclusions or
> UDRP battles over what may end up to be hundred of open generic TLDs.
> Keep any issues of who has rights to a name to the *.name TLD.
>
> "It is recommended that measures be adopted to protect geographical
> indications and indications of source in the open gTLDs"
>
> "It is recommended that the scope of the UDRP be broadened to cover
> abusive registrations of geographical indications and indications of
> source as domain names in all open gTLDs"
>
> This could be a nightmare for WIPO and the UDRP.  Does the Wellington
> City Council or the Wellington Regional Council have rights to
> wellington.com?  How about the Wellington in the US and in the UK?
>
> We have ccTLDs for a reason and issues of geography can be handled
> within each ccTLD.  Trying to claim rights to a generic geographical
> identifier is problematic.  Should Washington DC or State of
> Washington claim Washington.com?
>
> "With regard to the ISO 3166 alpha-2 code elements, it is recommended
> that:
>
> (i) a mechanism be established to exclude such elements from
> registration in the new gTLDs, absent an agreement to the contrary
> from the relevant authorities"
>
> Well this has already happened.  The ICANN staff have decided for
> themselves this is now a policy and included in the new TLD
> agreements.  Where is the bottom up decision making on this?
>
> (ii) the persons or entities in whose name such codes are registered
> at the second level in the existing gTLDs and who accept registrations
> of names under them be encouraged to take measures to render the UDRP
> applicable to these registrations, as well as to registrations at
> lower levels, and to ensure the proper and prompt implementation of
> decisions transferring or canceling these registrations resulting from
> the UDRP.
>
> This sounds like the Aust Govt trying to stop au.com being a
> competitor to com.au.
>
> Anyway sorry this is a long post but lots of issues to consider.
>
> DPF
> --
> david@farrar.com
> ICQ 29964527
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga-udrp@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-udrp" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k 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 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


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