[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-b] An idea?
Michael, it's bad enough that Sunrise+20 was slipped in on deadline and discussed in the Final WGB Report although the idea was not even vetting by the group. Now you generate a new idea AFTER the comment deadline.
Do different rules apply to the Chair?
Perhaps it's not too late to discuss the role of your thankless job as Chair. IMHO, the Chair acts as a liaison between the Working Group and the Names Council and/or DNSO. Further, the Chair keeps the WG members on task and on deadline, identifies consensus if any, and summarizes the discussion in an unbiased fashion in a final report and recommendation.
Your proposal is disturbing not solely because you present it after the deadline for public comment. IMHO, it starts off with an erroneous premise--that additional mechanisms are necessary to thwart abusive bad faith registration.
Prior restraint absent actual evidence of bad faith does not belong in any proposal. This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with technical management of the domain name system. It serves only one group of Internet users at the expense of all others and it anticipates the activities of the few while harming the many.
Also, your proposal contains a presumption that people register domain names only when their online plans are fully formed. The actual practice does not bear out such a presumption. Most people register a domain name the minute the hint of an idea wafts past, in part because of this hypercompetitive marketplace. A UDRP proceeding filed within the first 60 days of a domain name registration hardly gives a person time to put the new domain name on a clutch of web pages, yet absence of a website or bonafide offer of goods and services might be construed by a clueless panelist as evidence of bad faith.
But I digress....
Working Group B was chartered explicitly to address Chapter Four of the Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, "The Problem of Notoriety: Famous and Well-known Marks".
NOT all trademarks. Just "famous and well-known marks". Your proposal, like Sunrise+20, goes far beyond this objective.
As Chair, you have an obligation not to toss new off-the-walll ideas into the mix. Your final report should reflect the comments, ALL the comments, in an UNBIASED way that helps readers who did not participate in the process understand the pros and cons expressed by the participants. From my reading of the public comments, trademark owners cannot seem to get past the notion that they must police all use of their marks, which they mistakenly construe as providing rights in gross to those words on the Internet.
Your idea should be treated the same as any comment posted after the deadline. Thus, I don't expect it to be mentioned, noted or appendixed in the post Final WGB Report.
Michael D. Palage wrote:
>Temporarily Modified UDRP During the Rollout of a New Top-Level Domain Name
>Any new top-level domain would be added to the root with no preferential
>pre-registration rights. However, in those top-level domains where
>additional trademark protection would be deemed necessary to thwart abusive
>bad faith registration, a modified UDRP would apply for a limited time
>period, say 30 to 60 days.
>During this start up phrase (30 to 60 days), any
>third party (Complainant) challenging a domain name registration in this new
>top level domain would contact a dispute provider and deposit the required
>fee (approximately $750 under the current provider rules). The dispute
>provider would then contact the domain name registrant and inquire if they
>wish to respond to the third party challenge. (Note: A significant number of
>UDRP are default proceeding where the domain name registrant never replied).
>If the domain name registrant wishes to respond to the challenge they would
>be required to deposit the same required fee as deposited by the
>Complainant. If the domain name registrant (Respondent) declined to respond
>to the Complainant, the domain name would be transferred to the Complainant
>along with a refund of the initial fee. Unlike the current UDRP proceeding,
>there would be no need for a written opinion in a default proceeding.
>If the Respondent posts the required fee, the dispute provider will conduct
>a proceeding using the existing UDRP rules. If the Respondent wins, the
>dispute provider will collect its fees from the Complainant and refund the
>deposit of the Respondent. However, if the Complainant prevails in a finding
>of bad faith, the dispute provider will collect its fees from the Respondent
>and refund the deposit of the Complainant.
>For those proceeding in which there is a default proceeding, the dispute
>provider will be compensated for their administrative oversight by a fund
>maintained by the registry. In order to share this burden equally among the
>entire Internet community, there will be a registry fee surcharge (less than
>a dollar) that will be accessed to all domain name registration in that new
>top-level domain. After the start-up phase (30 to 60 days) there will be no
>addition surcharge on domain name registrations and the UDRP rules will
>return to normal, i.e. a Complainant must pay the full fee in order to
>initiate a challenge.
>The benefits of this proposal are that there are no preferential
>pre-registration rights given to anyone. Additionally, the economics of
>abusive domain name registrations would be temporarily altered during this
>land-rush phase to create a disincentive for these types of bad faith
>registrations. Under the current system, a $20 dollar domain name
>registration imposes upon the Complainant an obligation to initiate a $750
>dollar proceeding. However, under the current proposal, people engaged in
>abusive domain name registrations would be reluctant to expand any
>investment in bad faith registrations if they would be required to invest
>several hundred dollars in a potential losing cause. Finally, this system
>allows individual and small business the opportunity to register a domain
>name of their choice and only have to expend a nominal fee to defend their
>registrant if it is challenged, with the guarantee that if they prevail they
>will be refunded their deposit.
>Just a last minute idea, any thoughts?
>P.S. Happy Mother's Day to any mothers on the list
Ellen Rony // http://www.domainhandbook.com
Co-author *=" ____ / firstname.lastname@example.org
The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010
// \\ "Carpe canine"
The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.