[process2-comments] RFC-1

 Name: HeeSeob NAM Organization: IPLeft Position: Patent lawyer Comments on WIPO Second Domain Name Process Who makes WIPO's coat change to World Intangible Property Organization? The issues raised in the draft terms of reference are NOT proper for the Second Process managed by WIPO. Personal names, INNs, names and acronyms of international intergovernmental organizations, geographical indications, and tradenames? Whose turn comes next? The title of a book or a film? Where can we draw the end line? According to the underlying idea of the Second Process, every indication or identification may conflict with the domain name. What is the resolution satisfactory to all parties involved in the domain name dispute? Under a system where identification should be unique and global, the identification inevitably conflicts with other names. Any effort to find out who is the only entity of a legitimate right for the single identification will not work. The proposed activity taking advantage of WIPO's prior work, which results in UDRP aiming at the transfer of the domain name to a trademark owner should not be repeated. I do not disagree that some protection be accorded to intellectual property and cognate rights. However, such protection should be given only under circumstances where the stability and freedom of the Internet are kept. In doing so, primary consideration should be given to public good such as freedom of speech and human rights. Secondary consideration may be given to the commercial interest or the consumer interest. However, WIPO is not the proper body to consider the public interest and to develop a policy in a balanced view, because it is an organization responsible for the promotion of the protection of intellectual property throughout the world. Therefore, it is my opinion that the process of gTLD conflict resolution should be taken out of the WIPO's hands and put into an internet community (like ICANN) comprised of various interests, commercial and non-commercial. Further, an alternative dispute resolution for the domain name collision could be to reduce the uniqueness of the domain name. I believe that we should consider the sharing of the conflict domain names among different entities. For example, we can prepare a common page or a gateway page from which internet users could select the site they are looking for. Consider that identical or similar names coexist in the real world and even in the trade market place. Moreover, we can make a neutral zone which is free from the disputes. The chartered gTLD could be an excellent solution to deadlocked domain name disputes. ICANN has not yet established a completed policy for the new gTLDs. There is no urgency in acting until new gTLDs are opened. Therefore, the second process should be postponed until the new gTLDs policy and its effect on the domain name system becomes clear. Further, the importance of the domain name is expected to be reduced by rapid technical progress. The domain name is a mnemonic means for users to locate internet sites. However, advanced search engines or other intelligent agents can more effectively locate the internet sites. I fear that the Second Process creates new form of intellectual property stifling freedom of speech and free distribution of information on the Internet. I hope not to do so. Truly yours, HeeSeob NAM