From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #1 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Thursday, February 3 2000 Volume 01 : Number 001 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:32:38 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] WIPO: Use of Trademarks on the Internet: Issues Paper Since we seem to be hibernating somewhere between the conclusion of the Interim Report Public Comments period and the Cairo meeting, it shouldn't hurt to suggest a bit of reading. The 3rd Session of the Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT/3/4) issued a issues paper with the catchy title of: Use of Trademarks on the Internet: Issues Paper To obtain this, go to the following URL, it is the 4th link in the index. http://www.wipo.int/eng/document/sct/index_3.htm Anyone (with the usual exclusion list) having read it and having a comment feel free to drop me a line, or write to the wg-c list if not completely off-topic. Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 23:57:51 +0100 From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand Subject: Re: [wg-c] WIPO: Use of Trademarks on the Internet: Issues Paper At 13:32 21.01.00 -0500, Eric Brunner wrote: >Since we seem to be hibernating somewhere between the >conclusion of the Interim Report Public Comments period >and the Cairo meeting, it shouldn't hurt to suggest a >bit of reading. > >The 3rd Session of the Standing Committee on the Law >of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical >Indications (SCT/3/4) issued a issues paper with the >catchy title of: > > Use of Trademarks on the Internet: > Issues Paper > >To obtain this, go to the following URL, it is the >4th link in the index. > >http://www.wipo.int/eng/document/sct/index_3.htm > >Anyone (with the usual exclusion list) having read it and >having a comment feel free to drop me a line, or write to >the wg-c list if not completely off-topic. I actually found the 2nd link (answers to questionnaire) interesting too, especially the statement "The most obvious conclusion to be drawn from the answers to the questionnaire is that there exists a wide divergence of views regarding the legal treatment of the hypothetical situations presented in it. From the perspective of trademark owners, as well as from the perspective of those who wish to participate in electronic commerce, this will probably seem rather disconcerting." There is as yet no global harmony of laws here. We should be careful to avoid crafting solutions that either assume or try to create one. Harald - -- Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 00:25:49 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: Re: [wg-c] WIPO: Use of Trademarks on the Internet: Issues Paper At 01:32 PM 1/21/00 -0500, Eric Brunner wrote: > >Since we seem to be hibernating somewhere between the >conclusion of the Interim Report Public Comments period >and the Cairo meeting, it shouldn't hurt to suggest a >bit of reading. > [snip] We're not in hibernation pending the Cairo meeting. Rather, I've just been too preoccupied with other responsibilities to post the straw poll, and proposals for moving forward, that I promised you last week. I'll have that out no later than Monday. Jon Jonathan Weinberg weinberg@msen.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 00:28:41 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] Where we go from here It's time to address our plan of action from here, and to chart a course that leads to our finishing up our work and presenting a final set of working-group recommendations (to the extent we can) to the DNSO. (This WG, after all, was chartered to accomplish a specific task and to generate a specific report, not to serve as a standing DNS debating society. Thank God.) It seems to me that we should be doing three things at this time. First, we have to figure out exactly what needs to be done. To the end, Rick Wesson's suggested to me — and I agree — that we should generate a list of requirements that need to be satisfied before new TLDs can be deployed. At the top of that list would be policy issues that ICANN needs to resolve. As a first cut (I'm not trying to be exhaustive here), it seems to me that such a list of policy issues could include the following items: 1. What process should ICANN use to select new gTLD registries? 2. What minimum qualifications must a gTLD registry have? In particular, must it be a nonprofit entity? 3. Must all gTLD registries operate an open SRS? (If so, should there be common SRS software? How is it to be developed, and by whom?) 4. What process should ICANN use to select new gTLD strings? (By wording the question this way, I don't mean to foreclose the answer urged in Position Paper B that ICANN should leave the choice of new gTLDs to the new registries — I'm treating that as one possible selection mode.) 5. What characteristics must a new gTLD have? In particular, must it have a "charter" reflecting a specialized purpose? 6. What rules should be in place regarding access to registrant data? Should ICANN mandate minimum information that a registrant must provide? If so, what should that information be? Should it mandate the manner in which registry or registrars in new gTLDs should make that information available? Should there be a centralized database? 7. What further conditions relating to trademark-domain name issues, if any, should be satisfied before new gTLDs are introduced? In particular, should ICANN postpone the introduction of new gTLDs until after completing its deliberations on the "famous marks" issue currently before WG-B -- and, assuming it decides in favor of new famous-mark rules, implementing those rules? 8. How should ICANN proceed with the initial deployment of new gTLDs? How large should that rollout be? (We've already reached some tentative conclusions on this point.) Comments, please: What items am I leaving off? Are there other ways to describe these points that would be cleaner, more precise, or easier to understand? Once we have a clean list of the issues that need to be addressed, we can try to hammer out some positions (or succinct explanations of our disagreements, or explanations of why we're staying mum) on those specific issues. As an initial aid, I'll put together a chart that sets out, for each of the questions in that final list, the positions expressed in the position papers and the comments. Second, I'd like to get going with a straw poll or two, since those take time to conduct. I'll try to post, within a couple of days, a straw poll on the issue of special-purpose or "chartered" gTLDs: That's an issue that got a great deal of attention on the list last month, and I expect a straw poll would be helpful in helping us figure out where members of the list stand. Third, I think it would make some sense to start putting together a document now that explains the thinking (and sets out pros and cons) behind the conclusions that have already gained the support of WG "rough consensus," on the desirability of new gTLDs and the nature of the initial rollout. I'll try to cobble something together, drawing on language from the various position papers rather than attempting to write anything new, and I'll post it to the list for comments and redrafting. I'm hopeful that if we all pull together, we can get this job done. Jon Jonathan Weinberg co-chair, WG-C weinberg@msen.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 09:12:20 -0500 From: "A.M. Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Where we go from here Hi Jonathan, >1. What process should ICANN use to select new gTLD registries? A lottery or similar random process. > 2. What minimum qualifications must a gTLD registry have? In > particular, >must it be a nonprofit entity? Must be a for-profit entity. The world doesn't need more non-profits pandering to some cause. > 3. Must all gTLD registries operate an open SRS? (If so, should > there be >common SRS software? How is it to be developed, and by whom?) The Internet doesn't need more private government regulation. > 4. What process should ICANN use to select new gTLD strings? Let the lottery winners select. > 5. What characteristics must a new gTLD have? In particular, > must it have >a "charter" reflecting a specialized purpose? A what? Let's get away from socialist managed economy models here and let the marketplace solutions prevail. > 6. What rules should be in place regarding access to registrant data? >Should ICANN mandate minimum information that a registrant must provide? >If so, what should that information be? Should it mandate the manner in >which registry or registrars in new gTLDs should make that information >available? Should there be a centralized database? ICANN should get out of the private regulatory model mode. No Internet service provider regulation. > 7. What further conditions relating to trademark-domain name > issues, if >any, should be satisfied before new gTLDs are introduced? In particular, >should ICANN postpone the introduction of new gTLDs until after completing >its deliberations on the "famous marks" issue currently before WG-B -- and, >assuming it decides in favor of new famous-mark rules, implementing those >rules? ICANN should move to stop it's restraint of trade ASAP. > 8. How should ICANN proceed with the initial deployment of new > gTLDs? How >large should that rollout be? (We've already reached some tentative >conclusions on this point.) Same as 7, above. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 00:25:45 -0500 From: "Milton Mueller" Subject: [wg-c] Court rules that TLDs "could indeed" be protected speech From the 2nd Circuit ct of appeals opinion: "The existing gTLDs are not protected speech, but only because the current DNS and Amendment No. 11 limit them to three-letter afterthoughts such as .com and .net, which are lacking in expressive content. The district court did not address the possibility that longer and more contentful gTLDs like ".jones_for_president" and ".smith_for_senate" may constitute protected speech, such as political speech or parody." [snip] "In short, while we hold that the existing gTLDs do not constitute protected speech under the First Amendment, we do not preclude the possibility that certain domain names, including new gTLDs, could indeed amount to protected speech. The time may come when new gTLDs could be used for "an expressive purpose such as commentary, parody, news reporting or criticism," comprising communicative messages by the author and/or operator of the website in order to influence the public's decision to visit that website, or even to disseminate a particular point of view. United We Stand Am., Inc. v. United We Stand Am. N. Y., Inc., 128 F.3d 86, 93 (2d Cir. 1997) (citation omitted)." [However, Name.space's first amendment claim failed because...] "Currently, Name.Space is free to use any of an infinite possible number of second-, third- and fourth-level domain names as long as it has not previously been registered. The difference between ".forpresident" and ".forpresident.com, " ".net" or ".org" does not rise to the level of a prior restraint that offends the First Amendment. Cf. Connecticut State Fed'n of Teachers v. Board of Educ. Members, 538 F.2d 471, 481 (2d Cir. 1976) (holding that "inconsequential," "de minimis" interference with free speech did not violate First Amendment)." m i l t o n m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u syracuse university http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 10:05:09 -0000 From: "Keith Gymer" Subject: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU The European Commission Working paper on the creation of the .EU Internet top level domain, dated 2nd February, 2000 is available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg13/index.htm It is open for public comment for 6 weeks - ie apparently until 15 March 2000 The paper specifically seeks answers to six key questions: Question 1: Please comment on the above outline of the delegation of the .EU TLD to a Registration organisation: the Registry. Are there alternative models for the Registry organisation that should be considered? Question 2: What should be the main criteria for the .EU Registry's registration policies? How should the registration policy be developed and implemented? By the Registry organisation, by a distinct consultative body or by the European Commission itself? Question 3: Would it be appropriate to apply the WIPO disputes and trademark policies as reflected in their May 1999 Report to the .EU Domain, or are there alternative solutions to these issues within the European Union? Might there be a specific role for the Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market in Alicante in this context? Question 4: To what extent might a more constraining instrument in the European Union or in WIPO reinforce protection of names and marks in the DNS, in addition to alternative dispute resolution? In that case which categories of names should be protected and how should they be determined? Question 5: Do potential business users, including small and medium sized enterprises have any suggestions as to how the .EU domain might be managed in order to optimise its contribution to the development of electronic commerce in Europe? Question 6: Are there any other considerations that should be taken into account about the relationships between the proposed .EU Registry and the national ccTLD Registries in the Member States? Keith Gymer PAGE HARGRAVE Manfield House 1 Southampton Street London WC2R 0LR T: +44 (0)20 7240 6933 F: +44 (0)20 7379 0268 Email: london@pagehargrave.co.uk Web: www.pagehargrave.co.uk ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #1 ************************