browse comments: RE: COMMENT ON WIPO RFC-3

RE: COMMENT ON WIPO RFC-3
rogerc@us.ibm.com
Fri, 19 Mar 1999 17:26:09 -0500

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: MCI WorldCom: "WIPO RFC-3"
Previous message: apisan@servidor.unam.mx: "WIPO RFC-3"

First, I would like to extend our thanks to WIPO Secretariat and, in
particular, the members of WIPO's Panel of Experts for the leadership that
they have shown in dealing with the very important issues associated with
the relationship between intellectual property rights and Internet domain
names. The subject is complex and vital to both the protection of
intellectual property rights and the growth of the Internet.

Second, in this submission, I will confine my comments to one matter that
was partially addressed in RFC-3; Section 3 "Resolving Conflicts in a
Multijurisdictional World with a Global Medium: Uniform Dispute-Resolution
Procedures"; "A Recommended Administrative Dispute-Resolution Procedure"
(139-201).

The report correctly concludes that the mandatory nature of this proposed
procedure suggests that it should be used in only those cases in which the
parties to a complaint have not been able to address the complaint outside
of the ADR procedure itself. We believe that a substantial opportunity to
avoid complaints exists to the extent that domain name applicants are
willing to place their applications on public notice for some period of
time before the registration is made effective. When a domain name
application is on such notice, intellectual property rights-holders who
might otherwise later file a complaint under the proposed ADR procedures,
would have an opportunity to address their concerns directly with the
applicant outside of any ADR procedure.

An advance public listing of a domain name application should not be
mandatory and we do not here suggest that it would fit the needs of all
applicants. But it may well fit the needs of some domain name applicants.
Moreover, any applicant who has gone through the effort of having their
application noted publicly for a reasonable period of time before the
application becomes an effective registration, should not then be subject
to the proposed mandatory ADR process, since any party with a potential
complaint will have had a reasonable opportunity to address it with the
applicant directly. If an applicant has placed its application on public
notice for a reasonable period of time, then complainants could avail
themselves of the opportunity to take whatever legal action is appropriate.

Such a modification in the ADR procedures would provide an incentive for
those applicants who might be inclined to do so, to place some or all of
their domain name applications on public notice and in doing so, reduce the
need for the mandatory procedures.

Internet Address: RogerC@US.IBM.COM
Program Director-Policy & Business Planning, IBM Internet Division