browse comments: WIPO RFC-3

WIPO RFC-3
jdg@rahul.net
Fri, 19 Feb 1999 19:30:34 -0500

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: lytles@neaccess.net: "rfc3"
Previous message: AIM European Brands Association: "WIPO RFC-3"

I feel strongly that the world's existing legal systems are more than
sufficient to deal with intellectual property claims, both of copyright
(as for material posted on a web site) and of trademark (as for domain
names).

I suggest that ISPs should, and domain-name registrars must, follow
this policy:

1. It is the job of the courts, and not of an ISP or domain name
registrar, to determine the legality or propriety of any message or
domain name. ISPs and registrars have no business censoring any
message or blocking the use of any domain name until a court, or an
appropriate government agency, orders them to do so. (Of course, in
some cases the ISP or registrar may BE the government agency.)

2. If you submit a domain name, send an e-mail message, or post a news
message or web page, any illegal contents are your responsibility alone.
The ISP or registrar should not be liable unless it violates point one,
or unless it does not make a reasonable effort to know who you are so
that you (the message sender or domain user) can be sued.

3. Courts which determine that a message is illegal should make
reasonable efforts to determine whether it may have been posted by
someone other than the author named in the message, whether by hacking
someone else's computer account or by forging the "From" address on the
message. Juries have a right to be informed of this uncertainty if it
exists.

I also feel that the three-letter top-level domains should be spread
among multiple registrars so that if one of them does violate point
one, you have alternatives. For starters, the Alternet domains such as
".int" and ".nom" should be added to the root servers immediately.

John David Galt

 -- Posted automatically from Process Web site