[process2-comments] RFC-1

 Name: Carlos Tabora Organization: PrintDay.com, Inc. Position: President My comments regarding WIPO RFC-1 are that tradenames should not be included within the scope of this proposal. I am concerned that WIPO has given examples of what constitutes as a geographical term (California oranges) and an International Nonproprietary Name (ampicillin), but did not give a specific example for a tradename. Although WIPO states in their proposal, “Unlike trademarks and service marks, tradenames operate to distinguish a business on the basis of its character, independently of the goods or services that the business offers,” I believe that specific examples should be provided to prevent a loose interpretation of any UDRP policy incorporating tradename protection. Based on WIPO’s inconsistent previous decisions, it is important to distinguish whether specific company names like International Business Machine are the intent of “tradename” protection in future UDRP policy or if this protection will extend to common industry terms like WAP or wireless application protocol. I believe that ICANN, WIPO and other approved domain arbitration groups are venturing into areas where they have no legal authority and are promoting processes that do not provide adequate protection for all parties involved. Moreover, I believe that it should be left up to each country’s designated body (i.e. – the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for the United States) to determine which tradenames or terms are truly “intellectual properties” and deserve protection. WIPO and ICANN do not have carte blanche power to bypass this system of checks and balances and indirectly affecting future Internet law.