[process2-comments] RFC-1

 September 12, 2000 Mr. Francis Gurry WIPO Internet Domain Name Process World Intellectual Property Organization, 34 chemin des Colombettes, P.O. Box 18, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland Dear Mr. Gurry: Verizon Communications is pleased to provide its comments to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on the recently posted Terms of Reference, Procedures and Timetable for the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process ( RFC-1). By way of background, Verizon Communications is the name of our new company after the merger of Bell Atlantic and GTE. Our company is now the owner of thousands of trademarks and other intellectual property assets that are squarely in the center of DNS policy discussions. Verizon looks forward to actively participating in the WIPO process and offering our support for WIPO's role in this continuing process. We note that RFC-1 specifically requests that parties not submit substantive comments on the issues at this stage. RFC-1 suggests that parties comment on the proper scope of the issues to be included. While we note that many of the issues in the RFC will require a detailed analysis by WIPO of the scope of its role in deciding domain name disputes that fall outside the realm of traditional disputes involving registered trademarks, we plan to submit substantive comments on certain issues in response to later RFCs. We note, however, that RFC-1 also inquired whether WIPO should address other issues in the RFC. Verizon supports the recommendations submitted by the International Trademark Association and members of the Private Sector Working Group members on areas where WIPO can build upon the excellent recommendations originally outlined in its Report on the Management of Internet Names and Addresses: Intellectual Property Issues (the Final Report). Specifically, we would recommend that the RFC clarify the scope of the process to include three additional areas of inquiry. First, we applaud WIPO for its work in creating definitions of bad faith and abusive registration of domain names in the Final Report. Our company was one of the key supporters of the US Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and we were pleased to see the WIPO definitions incorporated into the test for determining bad faith under that law. The law has proven to be an invaluable tool, along with the UDRP, for trademark owners to combat the ever-increasing numbers of cybersquatting cases that have arisen in the gTLDs and ccTLDs. We are also actively monitoring similar legislative efforts throughout the world, including the pending anticybersquatting bills in Italy and Belgium. These bills have very different approaches for determining whether a defendant has registered a domain name in bad faith and may be found liable for cybersquatting. The remedies and penalties also differ from U.S. law and from each other. We understand that other countries are also considering cybersquatting legislation in 2001. For these reasons, we strongly urge WIPO to begin an inquiry, through the RFC process, on how best harmonize these laws and provide guidance to its member states. Although we understand that a cybersquatting treaty is a fairly long process, beginning the inquiry now will ensure that member states turn to WIPO as they begin to craft their national legislation in this area. Second, we support the concerns of the intellectual property community in ensuring a fully open, searchable and freely available WHOIS database. The issue raised in RFC-1 with respect to technical solutions for domain name and trademark collision controls is exactly the type of issue WIPO should be considering. The preservation of a workable WHOIS database is a top priority for intellectual property owners. Verizon has experienced many frustrations using WHOIS databases in recent years because we are unable to conduct robust searches or obtain critical domain name information, which is necessary to establish bad faith or abusive registration under ACPA or the UDRP. In addition, ccTLD information in the WHOIS database is also frequently unavailable. Even when information can be accessed, it is often inaccurate or stale. We are similarly disturbed by recent unsuccessful attempts by Network Solutions to insert language into bills in the U.S. Congress that permit registrars to cut off access to the WHOIS database. For these reasons, we would strongly encourage WIPO to include WHOIS as an item for discussion in the technical solutions section. Third, we would also encourage WIPO to continue its excellent work in the area of best practices". Since the release of WIPO's Final Report, there have been many changes in the DNS landscape, including more active activity by ccTLDs and the proliferation of domain name auction sites, to name but a few. ICANN's imminent recommendations to introduce new gTLDs will also require further discussion of best practices. For these reasons, we would support WIPO's continued guidance in this area. Verizon appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments and is glad to offer any further assistance as WIPO continues this important process. Sincerely, Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel