[process2-comments] RFC-1

 Name: Doug Rehman Organization: Individual In the real world, people wishing to picket a company, government, or other organization go to that organization's headquarters or other visible location. Obviously, their free speech is more effective in reaching interested persons when it is conducted in proximity to the target of the speech. How effective would a protest against XYZ Widgets if it is conducted in the middle of the desert? While the Internet is international, it has historically embraced the freedoms enjoyed by Americans, especially free speech. Never before in the history of this planet has an individual had the ability to openly express their opinions as they now have via the Internet. At a time when true investigative journalism is all but completely dead, the Internet allows the whistleblower, the critic, the disparaged consumer, and the otherwise interested person to effectively share their thoughts and knowledge with the world. If this free speech is relegated to obscure URL's, it will almost certainly be overlooked. I oppose favoring the use of geographic names for use by that city, state, etc. In the U.S., the .us TLD provides each city, county, and state with a unique URL. To say that the City of Orlando has a greater right to orlando.com than anyone is groundless. The City of Orlando already has a right to the ci.orlando.fl.us domain. What happens when there are several well-known geographic locations with the same name? Springfield, Massachusetts, Springfield, Illinois, Springfield, Ohio, and Springfield, Missouri are all well known. Who is entitled to springfield.com? The Massachusetts city was probably the first founded, so do they get it? The Illinois city is a state capitol and the home of Abraham Lincoln; do they get it? Does the first city to stake a claim get it? How about Springfield, Georgia; they may not be well known, but aren't they due consideration? How about the musical artist Rick Springfield; isn't he entitled? How about the Springfield Armory, former home to Springfield Arms? What about the private individual who wants to protest against the government of Springfield, Illinois? Domain names have always gone to the first person to register them. In a world where multiple parties can claim an interest in a domain name, this process has considerable merit. Traditionally, the Internet has been about fundamental fairness. Decisions about entitlement to a given domain name should follow the American judicial system. While not perfect, the system gives equal standing to an individual and a multi-national corporation. The dispute resolution process should begin with an assumption that the current registrant of a domain name rightfully possesses it. The challenging party should bear the burden of clearly proving that the possessing party has acted in bad faith. The label of "bad faith" should be reserved for cybersquatters and individuals seeking to use a well-known mark to generate traffic to their non-related website. Individuals utilizing a domain name for free speech should be protected from cyberjacking by deep-pocketed organizations. Likewise, even the slightest trace of a legitimate stake in a domain name should be sufficient to protect the initial registrant from attempts of cyberjacking. Further, government entities, already having their own protected domains (.gov, .mil, and the .us TLD for cities, counties, and states), should not be able to challenge .com, .org, and .net registrations. The failure of a government organization to register a domain name that the public might mistakenly believe to belong to the organization is a testament to that organization's technological illiteracy. Only in instances where the registrant attempts to trick visitors into thinking that a site is official, should a challenge be allowed.