Re: [wg-c] WGC Position Paper

[Annie Renard <Annie.Renard@nic.fr>]

I support the following WG C position paper.

---
        Annie Renard    [nic@nic.fr]
        AFNIC/NIC France
	c/o INRIA domaine de Voluceau BP105, 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX, France
	http://www.nic.fr/
---
	 
	 >>> "Chicoine, Caroline" <chicoinc@PeperMartin.com> 10/08/1999 7:56:42 PM >>>
	 WG-C POSITION PAPER
	 
	 QUESTION ONE: HOW MANY NEW gTLD's, AND HOW FAST?
	 
	 We strongly believe that the question of how many gTLD's should be added
	 and how fast, should not be addressed until appropriate safeguards are
	 in place in the form of i) improved domain name registration procedures;
	 ii) implementation of speedy and effective uniform dispute resolution
	 procedures for abusive registrations; and iii) adoption of a system for
	 protecting famous and well-known trademark across all gTLDs. 
	 
	 Once these safeguards have been adopted and are shown to be effective,
	 we believe new gTLDs may be introduced, if necessary, provided they are
	 introduced in a slow and controlled manner followed by an evaluation
	 period before any further new gTLDs are added. The evaluation must
	 include all technical and legal aspects of the new gTLDs and registries,
	 in order to make any necessary amendments of rules and conditions. Only
	 after assessing the results of the evaluation should it be possible to
	 add more, if needed.
	 
	 We strongly support WIPO's conclusion that there is a need for
	 improvement of the registration practices in the Domain Name System
	 (DNS), and in particular, centralized access to the "WHOIS"-type data.
	 The lack of reliable information about domain name registrants
	 dramatically increases the amount of time and money expended by
	 intellectual property owners in defending their intellectual property
	 against abusive domain name registrations.  Such limitations only serve
	 to encourage abuse of intellectual property rights, frustrate the
	 effective enforcement of legitimate intellectual property rights and,
	 inevitably, increase the cost of doing business on the Internet for the
	 end user, as well as reducing their confidence in same.  ICANN has
	 recognized the importance of such data and proposes requiring that all
	 accredited registrars be obligated to provide query-based access to
	 registration data and be barred from placing conditions upon any legal
	 use of the data under the tentative agreements among ICANN, the United
	 States Department of Commerce and NSI (see
	 http://www.icann.org/nsi/factsheet.htm ).  While this is a step in the
	 right direction, we believe access to the data must be centralized in
	 light of the number of registries being accredited by ICANN.
	 
	 Specifically, the primary concern of the intellectual property community
	 is with the clear cases of abuses which are occurring daily under the
	 current DNS without such safeguards.  However, the intellectual property
	 community also has a strong secondary concern in resolving disputes
	 between owners of competing, legitimate interests in trademarks/domain
	 names.  While we agree that ICANN must quickly move to implement systems
	 that will thwart, if not eliminate, the cases of clear abuse, we also
	 believe that ICANN must develop procedures that will adequately address
	 situations where owners of legitimate trademark rights in the real world
	 marketplace come into conflict within the DNS of the virtual world
	 marketplace.
	 
	 Similarly, we agree with WIPO's observation that the current dispute
	 resolution policy that is maintained by current registries is
	 unsatisfactory. For this reason, we strongly support WIPO's
	 recommendation that the development and implementation of an
	 administrative dispute resolution procedure will assist in alleviating
	 the problems currently faced by all intellectual property owners under
	 the current DNS.  By instituting a dispute resolution procedure, ICANN
	 will provide intellectual property owners with a cost effective and
	 speedy option for resolving domain name disputes without the onerous
	 task of resorting to litigation.  It should be noted that we believe
	 that a uniform dispute resolution policy should be implemented shortly
	 since ICANN has a proposed policy pursuant to the August 26th resolution
	 reached at the ICANN meetings in Santiago which is supposed to be
	 completed within forty-five (45) days of same.
	 
	 Likewise, we agree with the WIPO recommendation that ICANN implement a
	 procedure designed to protect famous and well-known trademarks.  Working
	 Group B of the Domain Name Supporting Organization is already working on
	 this issue, and we believe we should await the preparation of its report
	 and wisdom before adding any new gTLDs.
	 
	 QUESTION TWO: HOW TO SELECT TLD STRINGS AND REGISTRIES?
	 
	 We believe that ICANN should decide on a set of new gTLD strings, and
	 then solicit applications from would-be registries (or existing
	 registries) to run those TLDs.  In picking the new gTLD strings, it
	 should have the assistance of a standing Working Group who would make
	 periodic proposals for new gTLDs. 
	 
	 With regard to the issue of differentiation between commercial and
	 noncommercial gTLDs, we are somewhat skeptical that such a distinction
	 would resolve a number of the intellectual property problems existing
	 under the current DNS.  We are concerned, for example, that adopting a
	 less stringent standard for contact information for so-called
	 "noncommercial" gTLDs may encourage abusive practices in such gTLDs.
	 Given that trademarks may be diluted by uses that are claimed to be
	 "noncommercial," we believe that uses masquerading as "noncommercial"
	 have the potential to be just as abusive as  "commercial uses."  More
	 importantly, we are wary that end users of the Internet might not
	 appreciate such a distinction and that consumer confusion would abound.
	 Furthermore, based on the nefarious activities which intellectual
	 property owners are already facing in the existing gTLDs, we are mindful
	 that a system relying on such a distinction may lend itself to abuse.  
	 
	 Therefore, should a system that differentiates between commercial and
	 non-commercial TLDs be put in place, we believe that very specific and
	 stringent protections should be established to prevent a party from
	 establishing a "noncommercial" Web site that lambastes its competitors'
	 products or services.
	 
	 We believe that a more constructive solution to the current problems
	 facing the DNS is to develop systems and procedures to greatly reduce
	 current abuses and to provide intellectual property owners with the
	 tools and mechanisms to effectively eradicate the abusive practices
	 causing controversy in the DNS.
	 
	 
	 QUESTION THREE: SHOULD REGISTRIES BE FOR-PROFIT OR NON-PROFIT?
	 
	 We believe some registries would be run on a not-for-profit,
	 cost-recovery basis, and could operate any number of gTLDs.  Other
	 registries, however, could be run on a for-profit basis, and would be
	 limited to a small number of gTLDs.  Assuming the proper safeguards are
	 in place, we see no problem with having for-profit registries.
	  
	 QUESTION FOUR: SHOULD ICANN REQUIRE SHARING?
	 
	 An ICANN rule would presumptively require that gTLDs be shared, but
	 ICANN would allow exceptions in particular cases. There may be new gTLDs
	 for special purposes, that should be excluded from the general rule of
	 sharing
	 
	 SUMMARY
	 
	 In summary, we believe that it is incumbent upon ICANN and all Internet
	 stakeholders to work together in order to develop the appropriate
	 safeguards to effectively deal with the problems which exist in the
	 current gTLDs and ccTLDs before confronting the challenges associated
	 with adding new gTLDs to the DNS.  After the necessary safeguards are in
	 place, ICANN and WIPO should evaluate whether these safeguards are in
	 fact alleviating the problems currently plaguing the DNS.  Once it is
	 clear that the proposed safeguards are working, we agree with the WIPO's
	 recommendation that, if any new gTLDs are to be introduced to the DNS,
	 they should be introduced in a controlled manner on an as needed basis.
	 
	 Anthony Lupo
	 Caroline Chicoine
	 Petter Rindforth