[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [discuss] Notes - Names Council Meeting, San Jose - 062599
On 28 June 1999, Randy Bush <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
>[ 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
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