To: process.mail@wipo.int
From: "Adrian Stephan"
Subject: Comment
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 23:24:49 +1000
My comments are based on first hand experience as an Australian small business.
My company Logistics Pty Ltd was incorporated under Australian law in 1987, that is, the word "logistics" was approved as my company name. In late 1994 I applied for the domain name logistics.com.au and was declined on the grounds (as advised by the ISP) that only 8 character names were being accepted. In early 1995 logistic.com.au was approved as my domain name. In early 1999 I noticed that there were many names longer than 8 characters and I applied to vary my domain name from logistic.com.au to logistics.com.au. That is, to add an "s" to my existing name. However, this was declined by MelbourneIT on the grounds that it was a generic word, although I have never had it fully explained to me why it is a generic word. The fact that it was my company name was totally irrelevant to the situation. Notwithstanding, MelbourneIT has approved other names that are generic if logistics is generic, viz reliability.com.au, grad.com.au and dependability.com.au to state a few.
It does seem counter-intuitive and simply unjust that some companies can have their names or parts of their names approved (some of them generic) as domain names and others cannot have their lawful name as a domain name.
I note the very comprehensive discussions about trade names, etc in the report. However, I believe it overlooks one very real issue that is fundamental to a larger and related problem.
A chronic problem facing many places in the world is stolen identity (passports, credit cards, bank accounts, etc). Although the focus seems to be on individuals, small businesses suffer exactly the same problem as well, and it is probably more difficult to detect. The irony of all of this is the police and other agencies are telling us to take every step and precaution to protect our identities; however, the domain name process seems to be more interested on giving away identities on some esoteric or altruistic, but nevertheless flawed, notion. As identity theft is a fast growing problem, I believe that WIPO should strongly focus on identity theft and make sure its domain names approval processes are designed to stop identity theft as the first priority. The current situation in Australia is, that despite police warnings about indentity theft and the need to protect an identity, I cannot protect the identity of myself or my company because of indeterminate logic in MelbourneIT and auDA (Australian Domain Name Authority) that continues to deny me the right to use my lawfully approved company name as my domain name.
Given the use of the same words throughout the world it is most likely that the identity would be best administered on a country basis. It seems obvious that a xyz.com.au will be a different identity to a xyz.com, etc.
In my opinion the following two key principles should apply within a soveriegn .com domain space (e.g..com.au) in approving domain names, above any other criteria. It should at least enable a small business to take key basic steps to protect its identity.
The identical words or word approved as a company or business name is allowed to be a domain name irrespective of any other criteria, as of right. That is, the identical words or word with no variations of any type are allowed.
Any adaption of the words or word to form a shorter domain name (an alias), cannot be approved if the proposed word is identical to a word that has already been approved to someone else. That is, if your company name is xyz abc and you want abc, you cannot have abc if there is already a registered company or business named abc.
In the report it identifies several Court decisions. I think the decision in the New Zealand High Court on qantas.co.nz is also relevant.
In his decision in the NZ High Court decision regarding qantas.co.nz, Justice Anderson commented inter alia "It is important to appreciate, of course, that the domain name is the gateway to exploitation and the defendant's registration has blocked the gate. Such registration is ... an instrument of fraud". Source QANTAS Press Release dated 17 December 1999, Qantas Wins Landmark Internet Case.
If you have any comments or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards
Adrian Stephan
Note changed contact information (1)
===========================================
Adrian Stephan (Managing Director)
Logistics Pty Ltd
POB 5068
PINEWOOD
VIC 3149
Ph: +61 (0)3 9888 2366
Fx: +61 (0)3 9888 2377
adrian.stephan@logistic.com.au www.logistic.com.au
===========================================