[process2-comments] RFC-1

 Name: Peter Lu Organization: usid.com Web Hosting Service Position: manager Comment: I suggest that you try to avoid damaging the interest of American people. When you consider domain rules, consider the Constitution of the United States of America in the first place. We object to any rule that could rip off the rights we enjoy here in the U.S. Try to avoid setting up rules that are only suitable for those China, Cuba, and North Korea kinds of countries. When you consider to protect those few celebrities for the sake of domain names, please also consider the possible damage to the rights of millions of people for the sake of fairness. Who said that only Singer Madonna has the right to using madonna.com? A fundamental flaw of the current trademark laws is that protection of one's trademark is often times violating the rights of others. Just because Singer Madonna has become famous does not justify that she owns domain madonna.com. Yes, she may have spent lots of money on getting such a fame. But no one could be able to deny the fact that the name she uses is a piece of public property and every person on the earth can use that name. On one hand, if Singer Madonna used some name that she created, we have no argument on her right to own and use her unique name. Also we may still feel conformable if she try to get a domain like singermadonna.com. On the other hand, if Singer Madonna is naturally entitled to have the domain madonna.com, why she does not try to prevent others from using Madonna as personal name anyway? What I am saying here is a layman's thought that you may not like to hear, but your rules in your fist PROCESS have created victims among the ordinary people, in our opinion. Personal names is a big issue here. This is not an issue about who is going to own what domain name. It is an issue about the fairness and equity. Trade names: It has prove to be difficult to resolve the disputes between trademarks and domain names. My opinion is that ICANN adopted your proposal and created the universal dispute policy and thus they generated many victims. ICANN is a failure. They are not able to confront with the domain monopoly. Did they do anything to interfere with Networksolutions.com hoarding so many expired domains? Networksolutions.com as a registrar should have waived the right to register any domains. Because of their self-interest minded domain agreement, theoretically they can get any domain they want from domain registrants. You may consider to propose some measures to stop the illegal practice of networksolutions.com, as claimed by register.com. You may be better off proposing some measures to prevent networksolutions.com from hoarding millions of domains. Yes, they are a multi-billion dollar business, you and ICANN can have no much power and thus no intention to do anything to confront their practice. All ICANN can do and have done is have victimized domain registrants and created opportunities for greedy big businesses and celebrities to reverse hijack some domain names. I suggest you leave the trade names alone. Let the sleeping tiger sleep. The common sense is that the more rules you introduce, the more errors can potentially occur. Trade names is a much harder issue than trademarks. There will be no end to disputes and no security for fairness. First come and first serve is the best rule for those names. Now let me say something about the geographical indication: First of all, what is the purpose? You may intend to protect the rights for those who HAVE the right to those geographical indicated domains. But who have the right? Who should own China.com, 1.3 billion of Chinese people or just a Hong Kong based Internet company? If you finally set up some rules on this category, I figure the best answer would be that Chinese people own the domain. But if Chinese people own this domain, how can we divide this domain into 1.3 piece for 1.3 billion of Chinese people for the sake of fairness. This is certainly not a way to use the domain. The best way is not to use it. Now another possible solution that would make you feel more comfortable. That is, let some people or a company uses it. But if one company owns and uses that domain, then why can't another company own it? usa.com, usa.net, uk.com, and ca.com are in the same situation. Now let us focus on a domain that covers a fewer number of people. As an example, how to decide who is going to use floridaorange.com? From your site, you may lean to award this domain to floridaorage.com to producer? But here I am not sure which producer or all producers. There are quite a few producers in Florida produce oranges. Who are you going to present this domain to? You may agree to let China.com company use china.com because they are a company on Wall Street now? If so, that means if you get the name early and use it, then you will be entitled to having it. If that is the rules that you will propose, then these rules can not exist because you can not judge the future of a company that hold a domain and therefore, you can not justify exclusion of their rights to such a domain. Now as I said the best way is not to use those domains. But you are too late to set up such rules. Many people use those geographical names as their brands and titles. Without those names, they will be out of business. That should not be your intention. I have no objection to your proposals to restrict the use of International Nonproprietary Names and Names of international intergovernmental organizations. This is because the rules will have no significant impact on the majority of people.