WIPO RFC 2
Philip Sheppard (philip.sheppard@aim.be)
Thu, 05 Nov 1998 13:54:06 +0100
Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: mheltzer@inta.org: "WIPO RFC-2"
Previous message: agneslee@nic.net.sg: "WIPO RFC-2"
AIM - the European Brands Association represents over 1600 manufacturers
of branded consumer goods throughout Europe. Within this number are some
of the worlds' largest manufacturers - companies which trade globally
and which will be at the forefront of electronic commerce in daily
consumer goods.
AIM would like to make the following comments on WIPO RFC-2
1 - 12 AIM welcomes the involvement of WIPO in the IPR aspects of domain
names.AIM believes that WIPO is the right body with the right global
credentials to debate and act on this issue.
AIM recommends the WIPO process to the Interim Board of the new
governing body of the Internet.
DETAILED REPLIES TO RFC-2
--------------------------
A. DISPUTE PREVENTION
13. AIM supports the concept of Dispute Prevention.
14.1 AIM supports a requirement for minimum contact details in a DN
registration contract.
14.2 Desirable but diffiult to implement.
14.3 Waiting periods are not desirable.
14.4 DNs should not be activated until payment has been made. Registries
can decide what they wish this to mean.
14.5 Warehousing will become irrelevant as we move from the monopoly of
.com to a directory structure.
14.6 A requirement for avoiding famous names before registration is
required.
14.7 Domain names databases should be transparent, and as accessible as
the domain names themselves.
14.8 Co-existence is only necessary to solve the problems of the
monopoly of .com. A directory structure will overcome this.
14.9 ccTLD policies must be consistent with gTLD policies.
14.10 Abusing ccTLDs that are meant to identify a country such as .TM,
.TV and .IO for any other use is confusing at best and fraudulent at
worst. It should be specifically prevented. All pseudo-gTLDs must
exclude an .ISO 3166 code formulation.
B DISPUTE RESOLUTION
15. AIM supports the concept of dispute resolution with a uniform
character.
16.1 All alternative procedures are desirable if they work. Use of
existing procedures such as those offered by the ICC are to be
recommended.
16.2 Consistency is important.
16.3 Procedures should be available for good faith and bad faith
disputes. However, as we move away from the monopoly of .com to a
directory structure the value to the pirate of a pirate registartion
will fall to zero. A procedure will be needed to stop famous name abuse
or passing off.
16.4 Registries and registrars should be separate from Dispute
Resolution.
16.5 A condition of their ability to operate should be compliance with
and execution of the outcome of dispute resolution.
16.6 The separation above implies the exstence of a dispute authority.
WIPO proposals should integrate with the expectations of the Internet
governing body.
16.7 National courts should be guided by the process and used to enforce
decisions.
16.8 A consistent approach is best.
16.9 DN suspension should follow after certain expedited procedures.
Automatic suspension gives a competitor an incentive to make a spurious
complaint.
16.10 There is no need for a time bar to complaints.
16.11 Appeals are not a usual part of dispute resolution procedures.
There is probably no need to add this complexity.
16.12 Loser pays.
16.13 On-line procedures are the way forward.
C. FAMOUS MARKS
17, 18.1 FAMOUS marks uniquely have the threat of piracy. For this
reason they need special protection. That protection guards the IP and
stops consumer fraud.
18.2 The conclusions of the existing WIPO expert group on famous marks
should be integrated. The meetings of that group should be brought
forward to meet the timetable of the Internet.
18.3 Links to the Paris Conventions and TRIPs are appropriate.
18.4 Lists of famous marks will not work. A defintion is the answer.
18.5 Prevention of use by others is required.
18.6 It is logical to extend this to ccTLDs.
18.7 If a mark fails to meets the definition cancellation can be
considered but the burden of proof should be on the third party to show
they do not want to unfairly benefit from any residual reputation of the
(once) famous mark.
D. NEW gTLDs
19. AIM believes that there should be NO ADDDITIONAL gTLDs UNTIL the
Interim Board has adopted procedures for DISPUTE PREVENTION, DISPUTE
RESOLUTION, AND THE PROTECTION OF FAMOUS NAMES FROM PIRACY.
AIM believes that thereafter any new gTLD should allow differentiation.
What is needed is a leap-frog in the gTLDs from .com to an infinite
user-driven directory structure.
This route overcomes most problems caused by the mononoply of .com:
a) trade mark disputes disappear once Prince.sport can co-exist with
Prince.networks and Prince.biscuits
b) it makes cyber-squating pointless - there is low value to a pirate of
Coke.computers
so long as Coke.drinks is owned by Coca-Cola
c) it makes Net nanny software simple as all you have to block is the
gTLDs of .sex, .adult and .porn for example. Most such sites are not
themselves seeking to corrupt but merely exist and be found.
d) It allows the net free-speech advocates to have personal pages within
.personal or .netfriends (or .whatever they want that suggests the
concept of personal without being confusingly commercial)
e) Consumers use their existing skills in the use of printed Yellow
Pages directories to navigate the Web with the addition of hierarchy
search engines which make it even simpler. Type the first word of a URL
(eg Continental) and the first search just gives QUERY.gTLD (eg
Continental.airlines, Continental.cans, Continental.dance).
END
Next message: mheltzer@inta.org: "WIPO RFC-2"
Previous message: agneslee@nic.net.sg: "WIPO RFC-2"