Re: [ga-udrp] WIPO2

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

Eric and all,

  It seems astounding to me that after sighning the MoU and the
White Paper that the than Interim ICANN BoD could than move forward
with forcing a UDRP document that they know did not have the
consensus of the stakeholder community or "Interested Parties", and now
wish to again discuss or debate revision of that same UDRP as if
it was just a potential unadmitted "Mistake" and needs revision
as is indicated in the WIPO 2 process even after the first WIPO
process clearly indicated that the than proposed UDRP was far
from ready for implementation let alone use.  I find this sort of
reprehensible behavior and action by the than Interim ICANN
BoD and WIPO and most especially the now referred to
"BoardSquatters".  It is not only my belief but a growing host
of other stakeholders and "Interested Parties" that such a
illegitimate decision and process that arrived at this decision
is paramount to poor creditability of the current ICANN
stained or malignant process we are all witnessing....

Eric Dierker wrote:

> May I begin by saying that I personally find WIPO offensive to each man,
> women and child.  They are an instrument of all that is wrong with
> corporate America.
>
> I for one read your entire post here and have read the TRIPS and at least
> fifteen BTAs, and am familiar with the WTO and GATT rulings and winks.  I
> am sincerely concerned with IMF money and succession to unreasonable
> demands made by the IP groups.
>
> The Internet community should be a lessoning of restrictions and a
> broadening of freedoms not the other way around.   These concepts you
> speak of give a power beyond that of trademark rationale. That is wrong.
> Each category of Trademark should be evaluated seperately, and these IP
> bastards have made them a gonglomerate.  You are addressing normal bright
> intelligent human beings here.  The entire UDRP stinks and any moderation
> in dealing with the swine who propagate it is wrong.
>
> Of course I oppose those who have had their life blood sucked out of them
> through reverse domain name hijacking, NOT.  Please Mr. DPF, make no deal
> with the devil on behalf of us dotcommoners.!!!
>
> Of course I can be bought otherwise ;-)
>
> 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
>
> --
> 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