browse comments: WIPO RFC-3

WIPO RFC-3
johnwood@kpmg.com
Tue, 23 Mar 1999 22:53:15 -0500

Browse by: [ date ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: MB / PG: "Indications Geographiques usurpees sur internet"
Previous message: simons@acm.org: "WIPO RFC-3"

KPMG appreciates the work being done by WIPO with regard to intellectual property issues associated with domain names, and responds to RFC-3 as follows:

Paragraph 46

RESPONSE: KPMG agrees with WIPO that the underlying relationship between a domain name registrant and a registration authority should be a contractual one.

Paragraph 50

RESPONSE: KPMG believes that for the purpose of policing domain names against prospective trademark and copyright infringement it is essential that there is accurate and complete contact details to enable a trademark and/or copyright holder if necessary to be able to effect service of process.

Paragraph 51

RESPONSE: KPMG opposes anonymity in domain name applications because it is often used by cyberpirates to hide behind. If an individual wants to maintain his or her anonymity there are services on the Internet that assure such an outcome, e.g. geocities

Paragraphs 53, 55, 57, 59, 62, 64, 67, 69

RESPONSE: KPMG supports the declarations and recommendations by WIPO's panel of experts.

Paragraph 75

RESPONSE: KPMG believes that waiting periods should be required prior to the activation of a domain name

Paragraph 78

RESPONSE: KPMG believes that although searches should not be mandatory they should be encouraged as part of the due diligence performed by a prospective domain name holder, on the basis that "prevention is always better than cure"

Paragraphs 88, 89 and 92

RESPONSE: KPMG believes that there should be unrestricted access to the database by those willing to agree under contract not to use the information for commercial purposes.

Paragraph 101

RESPONSE: KPMG supports the recommendation of the WIPO panel of experts

Paragraph 106

RESPONSE: KPMG believes that portals and gateways may prove a useful way to resolve a dispute, but it should be an option available to the parties

Paragraph 115

RESPONSE: KPMG supports the recommendations of the WIPO panel of experts

Paragraph 119

RESPONSE: KPMG believes that jurisdiction should be afforded where the registrant or registry or registrar reside and/or do business or where the "A" root server or ICANN is located

Paragraphs 128, 134, 138 and 142

RESPONSE: KPMG supports the recommendations of the WIPO panel of experts

Paragraph 151

RESPONSE: KPMG believes that the ADR should be limited to cases where immediate and cost-effective resolution of disputes will arise. Accordingly, the scope of its activity should be limited to cybersquatting, infringement of well known marks and consumer fraud cases. KPMG joins AT&T and Bell Atlantic in their recommendation that the ADR panels should contain only highly qualified panelists.

Paragraphs 158, 159, 163, 165, 168, 171, 174, 178, 182 and 187

RESPONSE: KPMG supports the recommendations of the panel of experts. However, it would add that costs should be awarded against the loser in order to deter speculative disputes

Paragraph 189

RESPONSE: KPMG would ask the WIPO panel of experts to specify how the central appeal process would work

Paragraphs 194, 198, 201, 218, 221, 223, 225, 229 and 232

RESPONSE: KPMG supports the recommendations of the WIPO panel of experts

Paragraph 234

RESPONSE: KPMG believes that ccTLDs should be subject to the same rules as gTLDs

Paragraphs 238, 245 and 284

RESPONSE: KPMG supports the recommendations of the WIPO panel of experts

 -- Posted automatically from Process Web site