[process2-comments] RFC-1

 Name: anon Organization: anon Esteemed members of WIPO: Thank you for an opportunity to offer comment. I wish to make a case that your organization should clearly indicate its role in serving trademark lobbyists when delivering reports on the issues you have outlined for comment. For the following reasons: It is apparently not clear to many people, based on your recent actions whether you are working under any UN guidelines, to benefit the generality of mankind or whether your recommendations are biased solely towards the interests of your corporate patrons. It is clear that you are a consolidating lobbying platform for large corporations and their inter/national trademark associations. It is clear that you represent your responsibilities on a larger scope than the original point of concern. For example, you may represent that various nations are coming to you for help; is it not reality that concerned corporations actively press their trademark lobbyists to express their concerns through a national channel. In turn you can effect favorable solutions that serve "member nations". Your recommendations are then presented to legislators and domain authorities as an "impartial" report, because of your association with the UN. It is clear that through precedence set by your arbitration process in recent cases, that a path is formally available to unfairly disgorge properly registered domain names from their owners in the event of a dispute. In the recent cases arising from business disagreement, on generic, non trademark violating domain names, the aggrieved party files for a trademark on a registered domain, pays you and obtains the transfer rights. In many cases the complainant has substantial resources, not least of which in one recent celebrated case,is a grant from the EEC. The loser in the same case has to rely on public donations to save his business. Some call this restraint of trade, others have stronger words. Here we call it the "grandmother mugging". Further it appears that you have begun acting on geographic names - even before first public comment. It is clear that you have offered no education to the general public which has registered several million domain names, on how to avoid "trademark" collisions. Indeed such a task may be impossible, because the terms of UDRP (for which you are an authoritative platform)legal one year, may be changed, to make the honest citizen an opportunistic Cybersquatter,the next. Indeed individuals may suddenly may find themselves the victim of your process from another type of opportunist that does meet your objective and subjective standards. It is clear and unfortunate that your corporate patrons have been the target of abuse and exploitation by unscrupulous individuals. It is not apparent if even one instance has effected measurable trademark damage and benefited from a case of profitable mistaken identity - with or without Cybersquatting legislation. This law is very effective for cheaply disgorging the domains that are deemed to clearly violate a famous trademark. It is clear that you role in arbitrating open and shut cases of trademarks filed before domain names and where there is clear intent to defraud, is beneficial and something the public can understand and appreciate when registering domain names. This arbitration process has a tremendously beneficial potential when used fairly. It is unclear that your arbitrators, albeit titled, have any qualification to decide on broader subjective issues, such as a domain registrants "intentions" of bad faith. It is the practice of domain thieves to marginalize proper domain registrants as holding domains merely for resale, or no clear business purpose. As you are aware, many people legitimately register names for use, perhaps for a purpose and timeline which neither your arbitrator or aspiring thief has any business to define future use, any more than another citizen has in looking into your legal personal dealings. It is clear that you have marginalized testimony that warned of potential burden and damage to individual domain registrants in consideration of limited TM holder rights. Cybersquatting legislation content, based on your recommendations has rightfully benefited TM holders, yet conspicuously denied consumer protection for innocent citizens from abuses by unscrupulous operators who use arbitration, tm filings to unfairly appropriate domain registrations. Your organization has been key, through deliberate omission in this observers opinion, in helping to undermine secure disposition of innocent and legitimate domain registrants to pursue normal private or entrepreneurial intentions. It is this observer's conclusion that your organization is not properly positioned either authoritatively or ethically, to define "best practice" in the area of UDRP for the masses or to define and implement new and novel interpretations of international law. It is clear that there is a tremendous body of learning and skill in your organization. But there is deep concern for your proven bias. You may perhaps serve your patrons more effectively, by formulating process decisions that are also fair, easily understood by the generality of mankind, the larger internet community, as opposed to forcing compliance to an ill fitting tm model for which you have an accustomed and formidable understanding. A concept of broad community fairness, may not sit comfortably with most corporate lawyers, paid to suppress conscience by their patrons, in pursuance of narrow benefits that in turn infringe on the legitimate rights of others. It should not be difficult for an organization representing the UN and associated with their highly respected charter, itself an exemplary best practice model. Sincerely, Concerned Citizen