browse comments: WIPO RFC-3

WIPO RFC-3
Natalie.CHEVALLIER@oami.eu.int
Fri, 19 Mar 1999 09:12:10 -0500

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: JIPA: "WIPO RFC-3"
Previous message: Reality is a point of view: "Comments on the WIPO RFC-3 Internet DNS recommendations."

Reactions on the RFC-3 Proposal:

Firstly I would like to compliment the proposal and the important changes that WIPO included in the paper. A real progress has been made. WIPO should continue to be the forum of discussions on such important matters such as the Internet Domain Name System and the protection of Intellectual Property rights, in particular Trade Marks.

Chapter 2. Avoiding disjunction between Cyberspace and the Rest of the World

§ 46. Concerning the proposals, I fully agree with the idea of a formal
Registration agreement and its contents, although I strongly disagree with dividing Domain Name applicants in two categories (commercial/non-commercial) - § 48 - and allowing anonymity for a large part of applicants. Dividing the applicants will not impede infringements, piracy or fraudulent behaviour and non-commercial sites can be used for violation of intellectual property rights as any other site.

§ 51, 63. At the same time, I do not agree with the idea of appointing an agent, information about Domain Name applicants must be transparent.

§ 75. A waiting period prior to the activation of the registry does not seem necessary.

§ 88, 89. The idea of a database accessible for everybody would logically be the solution.

Chapter 3. Resolving conflicts

In the rules of procedure, the Decision-Maker should not also have the power to modify and/or re-affect the Domain name to a different TLD or any other changes. The choice of only one person - § 174 - can lead to a new dispute and be time consuming. I agree with a group consisting of three persons.

§ 189. Concerning a centralised appeals body, I am against this idea because it would give the role of a quasi legal body. Parties would already have the possibility to go to national courts.

§ 194. Regarding fees and honoraria's, maximum and minimum limits should be foreseen, to guarantee a minimum of quality.

§ 194. All charges should be paid by the applicant if its Domain name
registration is cancelled.

§ 199. I would like to raise the fact that the length of registration cannot be used as a reference, as sometimes sites can remain undetected for a long time but still be fraudulent.

§ 201. In relation to the main points that should be considered when taking a decision, any prejudice suffered by the complainant should also be taken into account.

Chapter 4. The problem of Notoriety

This point is one of the most delicate ones and also one of the most
important. I propose that a list of Well known Trade Marks could be drawn up for ICANN for information.

Chapter 5. New Generic Top-Level Domains

New gTLDs should only be foreseen once the above mentioned points are
clarified.

Natalie CHEVALLIER
OAMI - DCT
tel. 34 96 513 94 64
fax. 34 96 513 91 78
email. Natalie.CHEVALLIER@oami.eu.int

 -- Posted automatically from Process Web site