browse comments: WIPO RFC-3

WIPO RFC-3
roc@cs.cmu.edu
Sat, 20 Feb 1999 17:28:40 -0500

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: da0g+@andrew.cmu.edu: "WIPO RFC-3"
Previous message: Andrew Sullivan: "WIPO's RFC3"

I'm a PhD student in the Computer Science Department at CMU.

I read the RFC-3 and Michael Froomkin's critique of it. I've very concerned about the impact of these proposals on free expression, especially on the operations of non-profit organisations and groups.

At CMU we've already experienced the "blackmail" abuse of intellectual property rights ... a man obtained a patent on connecting vending machines to the Internet, and warned us to shut down our Internet-attached Coke machine, even though our system had been in operation for many years before his patent was even filed. Had he chosen to take legal action, we would have had insufficient resources to mount a defense. I am fearful of expanding the scope and strength such malicious complaints in the area of domain names.

I think that there could be a good compromise: assign varying degrees of trademark protection in different gTLDs. For example, the .com TLD could have very strong trademark protection, but the .org TLD could have significantly weaker trademark protection. This would address the IP policy base most relevant to DNS: preventing confusion or deception of third parties. Internet users would quickly learn to associate legitimate owners of trademarks with the .com domain --- which is, I think, already generally current practice. However, small companies, non-profit organisations, and other parties who wish to be protected from legal harrassment could use the .org domain (or some new TLD), at the cost of a more dubious status in the eyes of consumers.

Privacy of contact information likewise could be varied between TLDs --- less privacy for .com holders, more for .org (or similar).

Finally, an aside: although the DNS plays an important role in the Internet, there is nothing that prevents replacement or additional naming and directory schemes from being developed that could effectively supplant DNS by making DNS hostnames invisible to the user. Indeed, many such schemes already exist, although they are not yet ubiquitous. WIPO should consider how IP rights would be enforced if such a scheme (developed, implemented and maintained by a private company) became widely used. Does IP law have jurisdiction over the transactions of such a company and its customers?

 -- Posted automatically from Process Web site