Name: Rod Dixon Organization: Individual Domain Name Registrant Position: Attorney and law professor On July 10, 2000, WIPO publicly announced what it calls the "Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process." The first process ultimately resulted in what we have now. WIPO has set December as the final month it will consider responses to its initiative to expand the jurisdiction of ICANN's informal "court system." Even WIPO admits that the UDRP is intended only to target "the most egregious problems caused by the tension between domain names and trademarks." Understandably, its success in this area is well documented. What is also well documented, however, are the unacceptable number of missteps made by arbitrators in applying a limited doctrine to inapposite disputes. In addition, the UDRP, itself, needs substantial refinement, if not more. Consequently, it is remarkable that an arbitration service provider would urge expanding exposure for the UDRP before the warts are removed. It seems self-serving to say the least. One area, in particular, that WIPO is considering for expanded UDRP jurisdiction is the so-called "misleading or unfair" use of personal names. What this actually means is unclear, but if the arbitration decisions involving common names are any indication, then WIPO may be moving toward suggesting that ICANN impose significant restrictions on freedom of expression under the guise of managing the domain name system. This is clearly inadvisable, unacceptable, and frankly foolish, and I hope you join me in saying so. One cannot escape the irony of an argument for increasing restrictions on freedom of speech in Cyberspace, which, notably, is viewed as a communications phenomenon that has all of the potential to enhance those freedoms. Specifically, WIPO asks "whether any protection against abusive registration as a domain name in the gTLDs should be accorded to personal names and, if so, in what circumstances and how." The short answer is no, and the long answer is, excuse the legalese, "hell, no!" Surnames are already given some level of protection under the laws of many nations. In the United States, there are provisions under the Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act (ACPA) that offer some level of protection for surnames that appears to be available in addition to applicable state law remedies. What is more, the use of the UDRP has not proven to be particularly responsive to issues of freedom of expression; perhaps, understandably so, but that cautions against expanding the jurisdiction of the UDRP, rather than supporting its expansion. Please consider my comments in context as well. http://www.domainnotes.com/news/article/0,2160,3371_518351,00.html
|