browse comments: WIPO RFC-3

WIPO RFC-3
erinsowden@aol.com
Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:32:36 -0500

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Gilberto M. Almeida: "Re: [dnsproc-en-announce] Extension of Deadline for Comments on Interim Report"
Previous message: Jane & Helmut Hirsch: "[Fwd: WIPO/RFC3 and RFC 1591 - March 1994 J. Postel]"

To whom it may concern,

I would like make a comment about paragraph 92 of the
Interim Report. The on-line data validation mechanism in real time is a good idea because, under the current registration framework it is quite easy to falsify the information about who has registered a domain name or is running a website. The automatic confirmation procedure listed in 92(ii) is a good proposal as well because it allows the information to be verified right away. Also, the requiement for current information in paragraph 93 and the consequences outlined in paragraph 94 are a good idea. The independanet neutral proposal in paragraph 97 is an important tool because of the impartial nature of the position. However, the guidelines of the independent neutral should be published. I also think that the recommendation in paragraph 101(i) is important because the contractual relationship outlines that a site will be taken down if the registration information is incorrect. The contractual nature of the agreement and the take-down procedure in 101 (ii) is important because it still allows a contrac
tual procedure to determine what the parties rights and responsibilities are versus legislative measures that must be interpreted.
In addition, I am pleased with the proposal to allow a party to obtain the information on a domain name owner if the party, in turn, allows their information to be released to the domain name owner. My only concern is that the process semms to be geared only towards protecting intellectual property rights. Although I understand that the function of the WIPO is to protect intellectual property rights, I think that the disclosure of a domain registrant's information should bedisclosed beyond the confines of concerns regarding Intellectual Property infringements on the Internet.
For example, I recently was doing research forU.N. Comm. on the Status of Women, specifically trafficking in women and children on the Internet. As I researched online, I came accross websites that had various reviews written by people who visited brothels around theworld with very young children. When I tried to locate the information on who ran the website, I could not contact the people from the registration information. Although I am still unclear on what level of protection this type of speech would receive under US Constitutional Law because it may be protected speech under the First Amendment, I still think that the registrants of the domain name should have accurate information on their website. So, I hope that privacy concerns will not trump more open access to the domain name registrant's information, even if it is not used strictly for Intellectual Property Infringement Proceeding Purposes.
Thank you for your time reviewing my comments.

 -- Posted automatically from Process Web site