RE: [wg-b] 800 Telephone Scenario

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@alvestrand.no>]

At 17:47 21.09.99 -0400, Michael D. Palage wrote:

>I think the notification process is important and could/should be
>incorporated into a final solution, but there are some fatal problems which
>I do not believe have been addressed. No registry or related agency is
>voluntarily going to undertake the notification process, to either the
>trademark owner or domain name registrant, because of various legal and
>technical problems associated with it (see NSI's position in the WorldSport
>case where the court wanted NSI to install filters).

Do you have an URL for this position?
A notification engine would not be a filter.
(I agree with your conclusion, but not with your arguments...)

>There are some people that I believe would like to scrap the entire Working
>Group B process and let the parties, famous trademark owners and domain name
>registrants, fight it out under the new soon to be enacted Uniform Dispute
>Policy.

If you mean that some people regard the idea of trying to protect globally 
famous marks as a dumb idea, you're right - I'm certainly of that persuation.
However, this is what I want as an *outcome* of the WG B process; that we 
considered the matter carefully, and decided that it was best not to.

>  But who wins under that solution - no one.

I disagree; I think the loss incurred by installing a mechanism (in harm to 
free speech, cost of registration and cost of litigation) is greater than 
the loss incurred by living without it. If that's the case, we all "win" by 
not doing it.

>  I refuse as co-chair to
>adopt such a fatalistic viewpoint - unless the consensus of the group
>dictates otherwise. Other ccTLDs have enacted safeguards for famous
>trademark owners so I fail to see why this group of participants (with
>impressive credentials) cannot reach an intelligent well thought out
>compromise.

URLs, please?

The ccTLDs have the advantage of living in a single legislative arena; if 
the Paris Convention mechanism had included a registry for famous marks 
that was up and running, I'd seriously consider using that as a basis for 
some of the processes we have seen proposed.

But it doesn't, so we can't.

                        Harald A

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no