[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-b] Re: Fw: Unfamous Names...
I think it is important for people to understand that WIPO doesn't make
law by itself. I was involved in the 1996 WIPO meetings on three
proposed digital treaties. Two were approved at the meeting, but in
much different form than the WIPO expert proposals (Based upon the Ad
Hoc/DFC/African country proposals). The third treaty, on su generis
database protection, was not approved, and indeed, after quite a bit of
grass roots opposition in the US, our own government had to reverse
itself publicly, in the middle of the 3 week negotations. Moreover, of
the two that were approved, the treaties will not even take effect
unless a large number of countries actually pass national legislation.
So the fact that there is a some report at WIPO on domain names is
interesting, but it doesn't mean much without national governemnt buy-in
(or I guess, ICANN buy-in, if ICANN is the new world government for
cyberspace, which some would have it become.).
On Sun, 9 Apr 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> At 18:34 08.04.2000 +0200, Mark Measday wrote:
> >In conclusion, the more the merrier. I'd still like an account from Harald
> >as to what happened in the official WIPO process, though, which might
> >prevent any waste of time.
> My note is still on http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/wiponote.html
> The only relevant part of the process was the part of the last meeting in
> Geneva, which I unfortunately had to leave to catch a plane.
> It was quite clear to me after that meeting that:
> - Strong pressure had been brought to bear upon WIPO to enshrine famous marks
> protection within its report
> - The WIPO people, like almost everyone else, didn't like the idea.
> Michael Froomkin is in a better position to tell you more.
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
P.O. Box 19367 | http://www.cptech.org
Washington, DC 20036 | email@example.com
Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176