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
egerck@mcg.org.br
Sat, 20 Mar 1999 00:19:37 -0500

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: gdp@hpalaw.com: "WIPO RFC-3"
Previous message: kathrynkl@aol.com: "WIPO RFC-3"


From: egerck@mcg.org.br
Subject: WIPO RFC-3

Attachment: http://arbiter.wipo.int/processes/process1/rfc/dns_attachments/rfc3/attach921907177.html

File notes: Arguments for Recalling RFC3

Arguments for Recalling WIPO RFC3
and Proposal for DNS/TM Resolution

Ed Gerck*

This essay shows that WIPO's RFC3 document is basically flawed in more than ten major technical areas and should be recalled in totum. Otherwise, pursuing the RFC3 recommendations will just lead to harm worldwide e-commerce, the Internet itself,Internet security, the public trust on business marks -- and, most importantly, users and consumers.

The essay supports some other views of Bell Atlantic and major brand holders to WIPO, but specifically in the suggestion that domain names not be squandered or brokered. In addition, this essay advances that a positive answer to the US's NTIA requests is possible. However, only by taking a quite different approach and by providing for a separation of powers.

Certainly, there is room for different views -- and, they must exist in an intersubjective approach. However, all participants may still agree to the same abstract model -- if the abstract model is flexible enough to support the different views in their entirety, while negating what is patently unwarranted. Thus, the present work may also serve to advance issues useful to such general endeavor.

Full text in http://www.mcg.org.br/nrfc3.htm or in the WIPO server.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
* Copyright © 1999 by E. Gerck and MCG. All rights reserved, free copying and citation allowed with source and author reference.

 -- Posted automatically from Process Web site

Next message: gdp@hpalaw.com: "WIPO RFC-3"
Previous message: kathrynkl@aol.com: "WIPO RFC-3"