browse comments: WIPO RFC-3

WIPO RFC-3
longmore@eng.utah.edu
Sat, 27 Feb 1999 13:20:34 -0500

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: turbotronic@prodigy.net: "WIPO RFC-3"
Previous message: dwreid@interaccess.com: "WIPO RFC-3"

I learned of the WIPO's efforts regarding
these things from the following URL:
http://www.excite.com/computers_and_internet/tech_news/zdnet/?article=/n
ews/19990226/2217614.inp

The following are quotes from the article:
A. Michael Froomkin, a law professor at
the University of Miami, [said]
"You know, the rule should be 'First do no harm.' "

Froomkin suggested that rather than coming up with
new rules to govern domain name usage, ICANN could
more effectively foil domain-name speculators with
two simpler measures: Requiring people to pay for
their domain names in advance, and canceling the
registrations of owners who use false contact
information.

Presently registrees have a 60-day grace period
before they have to pay for a domain name they've
claimed, which allows speculators to trade in
desirable names without spending a dime.

While what Froomkin suggested was towards ICANN, similar
measures would also be more appropriate on an International
level. Further, there is a difference between someone
buying, for example, the domain name "honda.com" when they are
not a part of the company Honda, and someone buying "accord.com".
While one of Honda's models may be an Accord, there may be someone
who's business or service relates to accord, as in "peace or agreement",
or who deals in music, or perhaps the buyer of the domain name is
collecting information relating to the Arabian-Israeli peace process,
and they want people to be aware of what is going on.

Another example with many possibilities is ford.com vs. escort.com,
or how about Chevy and the Cleveland Cavs (the National Basketball Assoc. team) and Chevy's Texas Mex (the restaurant)?

These examples deal primarily with the auto industry. There are
so many other areas where people and organizations can come into
conflict. If domain names are regarded as "intellectual property",
so much time and money will be wasted on litigation, and the rights
of humanity will be trampled by corporations, who already have
more "say", more "voice" than people do.

I urge you to consider measures other than: 1) making domain names
intellectual property, and 2) making litigation over ownership of
a domain name difficult for people and easy for corporations.

In regards to the paragraph:

51. Further comments are requested on whether it would be
desirable to allow a domain name holder to remain
anonymous on condition that it supply the contact
details mentioned in the preceding paragraph of a
designated agent.

Yes, it would be desirable. My suggestion is to have the
"authoritative body" (the one with whom a domain name is registered)
act as a liason between the contact (where specified) and the person
wishing to make contact, and in the case of domain names NOT owned
by corporations, etc. (eg. individuals or groups not for profit), I
recommend that the "authoritative body" be the 3rd party contact,
unless one is explicitly designated.

I may provide more comments at a later time, but I have duties to
attend to.

 -- Posted automatically from Process Web site