Re: [discuss] Notes - Names Council Meeting, San Jose - 062599

["Cthulhu's Little Helper" <skritch@home.com>]

On 28 June 1999, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

>no.  i suggest we focus on the content/issues as opposed to when someone
>says that they would like to have results.  the meta-discussion only serves
>to delay actual consideration of content.  and when that happens, my first
>question is who is benefitting.  but that is an internal question, not
>something worth discussing publicly, we have sufficient recriminations to
>satisfy the most miserable of personalities.

Fair enough.

>
>[ purely personal opinion follows ]
>
>in wg a, the two issues that interest me personally are
>  o should the wipo dispute resolution process be confined to cybersquatting
>    / cyberpiracy, or should it be considerably expanded?
>  o should there be a standard dispute resolution process throughout all
>    registrars / registries?
>
>on the first point, i think we should do the minimal change to protect
>legitimate use.  wipo proposes much new process and law that has not been
>well-tested or universally accepted.  in the time since nsi put their
>dispute resolution policy in place, the courts have done much to advance
>protection against cybersquatting etc.  so i ask what is the minimal change
>we can make in public policy to ensure prudent progress and operation of 
>the net?

Clarification: Whose definition of "legitimate use" are you using here?

>
>on the second, i have heard only one argument in favor of uniform policy
>which i consider cogent.  a low-ball anything-goes registrar would capture
>the sleaze/cybersquatter market and make it quite difficult to pursue
>sleaze, especially in a multi-national context.  i am undecided, but might
>become more convinced if someone were to propose a *minimal* uniform policy
>to minimize this problem while not preventing market differentiation and
>experimentation in this area.  and i am told that recent court cases have
>already made cybersquatting a less viable strategy.  if so, is this
>sufficient?  if not, what is the minimal thing we need to help here?

Actually, is it even possible to form a minimal UDR policy that wouldn't
basically read as deferring to each country's laws on the matter?

-- 
 Mark C. Langston