RE: [wg-c] Compromise proposal

["Chicoine, Caroline" <chicoinc@PeperMartin.com>]

Mikki, could you please forward your support for the "900" number
mentioned in your email and confirm what disputes it includes (i.e.,
only those officially commenced by NSI, court actions, ??).  Thanks

Also, please be reminded that the uniform dispute policy being finalized
by ICANN only applies to abusive registration (i.e., cybersquatting), is
expected to include a reverse hijacking provision and is not meant to
apply where two legitimate interests are at stake.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mikki Barry [mailto:ooblick@netpolicy.com]
Sent: Friday, September 03, 1999 9:26 AM
To: Chicoine, Caroline
Cc: wg-c@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [wg-c] Compromise proposal


I completely disagree.  Domain name disputes have decreased over the 
years to less than 900 last year despite the huge increase in domain 
name registrations.  A domain name dispute policy is merely a method 
of stalling the inevitable addition of gTLDs in order to increase 
competition and actually assist businesses who wish to choose a 
domain name that is already in use.

Further, non-commercial gTLDs should NOT be covered under any type of 
dispute policy that is keyed to commercial users.  If the use is non 
commercial, it cannot be infringement or dilution regardless of which 
domain name is chosen.  Attempting to mandate differently is improper 
creation of international intellectual property law.



At 8:48 AM -0500 9/3/99, Chicoine, Caroline wrote:
>I second.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Petter Rindforth [mailto:petter.rindforth@enderborg.se]
>Sent: Friday, September 03, 1999 8:34 AM
>To: wg-c@dnso.org
>Subject: [wg-c] Compromise proposal
>
>
>Dear Jon,
>
>Firstly, I would like to give you credit for your attempt to summarize
>the discussion and to come up with a suggestion.
>
>Secondly, however, I believe that you have missed the point with your
>compromise proposal. I stated already in my introductury message of
July
>12 that we should start slowly with the introduction of 2-3 new gTLDs
>and thereafter have an evaluation period. As I have said before, the
>number shall then be possible to increase if necessary.
>
>I also said there are many problems to be solved before any new gTLDs
>can be introduced. One very important issue is the creation of a
dispute
>policy and the need to stop cybersquatting. I do not want to be part of
>a system where trademark owners will have to register in all new gTLDs
>just to protect themselves from infringers.
>
>I know that these matters are handled primarily by other WGs, but the
>point is that we can not make any recommendations on new gTLDs and
>forget about other closely related matters. In the compromise proposal,
>you focus on the number of new gTLDs to be added to the DNS. IMHO, it
is
>not the number of new gTLDs that is the problem, but rather the
>environment in which gTLDs (both those that currently exist and those
>that might be added) are used:
>
>_Before_ any new gTLDs can be introduced we must have
>a) a speedy and effective dispute resolution process (preferably
>mandatory)
>b) a system for protecting famous and well-known trademarks across all
>gTLDs, and
>c) an easy and cost-effective system for obtaining full contact
>information
>
>(yes, I have said all this before)
>
>If anyone can convince me that this can be made immediately with the
>introduction of 6-10 or more new gTLDs, then I can live with this
higher
>number, but I strongly doubt.
>
>It is important that this WG add the above (a-c) prerequisites to any
>suggestions of new gTLDs.
>
>The introduction must be made in a very controlled manner, and that's
>why I am convinced that it has to be a few to begin with.
>
>Regards,
>Petter Rindforth
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Member of the INTA Internet Committee
>Member of the FICPI CET Group 1
>Chair, Trademarks Committee of the Association of Swedish Patent
>Attorneys
>Interim Chair of the Swedish Board for Domain Name Regulations
>(the latter information added with reference to another discussion on
>this list ;-))