To: process.mail@wipo.int
From: "Andi Eastman"
Subject: RFC-3
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 09:00:21 +0200
Name: Andi Eastman
Position: individual
The proposal to treat geographic domain names essentially the same way as trademarks is highly unfair.
The fact is that the vast majority of geographical domain names in the .com, .net and .org endings are not run by any “official” or governmental entities. In the US, these entities can use and are often using the .gov or the .us extensions. In other countries these entities have control over their country domain extensions and are ruling over them according to their preferences.
These proposed new rules are essentially an invitation for any “official” or governmental entity, to take away a valuable asset without compensation from a legitimate domain name owner who has invested time and money, sometimes in a substantial way.
An example of a highly controversial decision which was handed down by an “Insider” of WIPO, Mr. Marino Porzio, who is a Member of the WIPO Policy Advisory Commission (PAC), since 1998 and who has worked at WIPO, Geneva, in different positions, being Deputy Director General, from 1980-87:
http://arbiter.wipo.int/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0505.html
In the above case the “Government of the City of Barcelona” had realized that the owners of “barcelona.com” had invested considerable resources and built a successful website. Those officials then decided that “barcelona.com” might be a valuable asset and challenged “the little guys”.
WIPO assigned Mr. Marino Porzio as an “impartial arbitrator” to the case. Mr. Porzio then essentially “constructed” a “bad faith registration” of “barcelona.com” and handed the domain name over to the complainant.
In order not to be stripped of their ownership rights without compensation, the respondent, with a budget infinitely smaller than that of the complainant and despite the high costs, had no other choice than to seek justice in a US court (the decision is still pending).
My suggestion is to create a new international top level domain which could be used only by “official” or governmental entities, but certainly not to retroactively change the rules on current domain name owners, making them easy targets for reverse domain name hijacking.