About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

browse comments: WIPO RFC-3

WIPO RFC-3
turbotronic@prodigy.net
Sat, 27 Feb 1999 13:35:47 -0500

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Jeff Partridge: "WIPO RFC-3 comment"
Previous message: longmore@eng.utah.edu: "WIPO RFC-3"


From: turbotronic@prodigy.net
Subject: WIPO RFC-3

Feb. 27, 1999

It has come to my attention that the WIPO has not considered the most important point of the Internet. This collection of sites that are all connected together by a slow and poorly funded network should be seen as an oppertunity for growth. In regard to your report which seems to be very "one-sided", geared toward the use of the Internet as a comercial venture, is a low-blow to what it was intended to supply the users.
As for domain names, servers that may contain the same domain name as others can trigger a query in the request for your attempt to view a URL. The result of this query can be presented to the user as an error code indicating a conflict that must require user intervention to resolve. Each of the URL's would be listed on the error page along with any special information supplied by each of the severs. This information would clearly identify each site the URL would take the user to. Information may contain, but not limited to, the site name, content, purpose, and site location.
Only this way could the problem of multiple site domain names be controled, by the end user. This too would force many site administrators to think twice of picking a domain name. Also, in many respects this could become yet another tool which could be used by search engines.
In closing, the WIPO must temper their judgement in this matter with the fact that the Internet is a collection of information. Some good, some comercial, and some bad. If the WIPO wishes to patrol domain names, that's fine. But to limit anything as simple as a name, less words that may indicate profanity, should NOT be done. The Internet can be a powerful way to advertise, supply needed information, and keep in touch, but remember, someone who enters this network does so at their own risk. Laws for such a network which has no name or address can be made to serve one person, the end user.

Thank You

 -- Posted automatically from Process Web site

Next message: Jeff Partridge: "WIPO RFC-3 comment"
Previous message: longmore@eng.utah.edu: "WIPO RFC-3"