browse comments: WIPO RFC-3

WIPO RFC-3
robert@salvation.com
Tue, 23 Feb 1999 12:26:07 -0500

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: jametrel@enoreo.on.ca: "WIPO RFC-3"
Previous message: hlatimer@wrf.com: "Comments in response to WIPO RFC-3"

I am concerned about the WIPO RFC-3 Domain Name Dispute proposal. As a trademark owner and domain name owner, I have worked hard to comply with Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) domain name dispute resolution policy (as revised over the years). I obtained a trademark to protect my domain name, and value my domain name and my trademark as Intellectual Property.

I am concerned that this new WIPO RFC-3 proposal will take away the national jurisdiction protection I now enjoy with my trademark and domain name. I am also concerned about other people who have domain names that are "common law" trademarks, but are not registered with any country. I read Professor A. Michael Froomkin's comments of your RFC-3 proposal and was quite alarmed at both the process and scope of WIPO's RFC-3 proposal. Is WIPO trying to invent new international law regarding trademarks and domain name disputes, in a world where only national trademarks are issued? What right does WIPO have to do this? I am worried that the scope of this domain name resolution proposal has been enlarged by WIPO to give itself more power and influence than it should have over the Internet and the Internet Domain Name System.

My hope is that WIPO will substantially modify RFC-3 to eliminate the required arbitration clauses and allow disputes to be settled in courts of law in the countries where the domain name holder and the trademark holder actually reside. If WIPO decides not to modify the RFC-3 document adequately, then I feel ICAAN should either reject this WIPO RFC-3 propsal or replace it with something similar to Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) current domain name dispute resoltution policy.

The Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) domain name dispute policy has worked reasonably well (as pointed out in A. Michael Froomkin's commentary on the RFC-3 proposal) with relatively few domain name disputes based on the number of domain names currently registered. Plus, we all got our domain names based on NSI's policy. Why should the rules all be changed now by an international WIPO organization. If you change the rules, you should grandfather the existing domain name registrants to abide ONLY under NSI's current domain name policy and NOT under a new ICAAAN or WIPO domain name dispute policy. Otherwise, legal owners of domain names could face themselves with new foreign or domestic domain name dispute challenges that they can't afford to defend themselves against that did not exist under current NSI domain name dispute policies.

While I admire your desire to want to change the Internet's domain name dispute policy to make it better to protect trademark owners' rights, I believe you have gone too far in the RFC-3 proposal to make it too broad and far reaching, and instead of just trying to prevent "cybersquatting" you may have introduced a new problem that could potentially be worse, that is of people holding others existing domain names for "ransom" with the threat of forced arbitration in a country other than the registrant of the domain name holder. This will surely intimidate domain name registrants into simply "handing over the domain name" to the challenger, to avoid a potentially costly legal fight in a foreign country or with foreign arbitrators that may not necessarily abide by laws in the domain holder's country.

Please go back to the "Keep It Simple" approach to domain name dispute resolution similar to the current one that Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) now employs. Every domain name registrant should not be forced to hire a trademark attorney just to protect their domain name from both national and international trademark challenges. Why not just require new registrants for domain names to pay up front BEFORE the domain name is registered to eliminate the "cybersquatting problem". You may also have a 30 day objection period for NEW domain name registrations where possible trademark holders can object to the new registration on trademark grounds before a new domain name is issued or granted. This is similar to the principal register publication method used for trademarks in the United States currently.

I hope these comments are considered and will help better our Internet Domain Name System and ICAAN.

Respectfully,

-Robert Adam Woeger
Owner of Salvation.com
E-mail: robert@salvation.com

 -- Posted automatically from Process Web site