To: process.mail@wipo.int
From: "Ludwig Weber"
Subject: RFC-3
Date: June 12, 2001
INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION
ORGANISATION DE LAVIATION CIVILE INTERNATIONALE
ORGANIZACIÓN DE AVIACIÓN CIVIL INTERNACIONAL
Tel.: (514) 954-6219 Fax: (514) 954-6077
Tel.: (514) 954-8036
Ref.: E 3/20
12 June 2001
Dear Mr. Gurry,
I refer to your letter dated 26 April 2001 transmitting the Interim Report on the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, and I wish to offer the following comments with respect to Chapter 3 of the Report:
1. We endorse the recommendation contained in paragraph 115 of the Report and support the view that exclusive reliance on protection through the .int top-level domain will likely fall short of the requirements of the international intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) for adequate protection of their names and acronyms. Consideration should nevertheless be given to the ability for IGOs to register in this top-level domain additional domain names relating to their various activities, programs or initiatives. It is also considered useful to enhance the public visibility of the .int domain name so as to create a more imminent association between the domain name and IGOs.
2. We would also favour a viable and comprehensive exclusion mechanism to protect both the names and acronyms of IGOs, particularly the blocking of registration of such names and acronyms in all open TLDs as well as in the new "charter" domains. Particularly in cases where both the name and the acronym enjoy protection under the Paris Convention or the Trips Agreement, this protection should apply as a matter of principle in all instances, unless in cases of express written permission, or, where there is demonstrably no possibility for confusion. In no instance should it be permitted to register a domain name for the purpose of "warehousing" or "hoarding". The onus in this respect should not be on the IGO concerned. We would therefore consider the recommendation contained in paragraph 123 of the Report as not far-reaching enough.
3. We also support the view that exclusion mechanisms should be in place with respect to domain names which are misleadingly similar to the names or acronyms of lGOs.
4. As far as the administrative complaints procedure is concerned, we wish to remark that a new administrative body under the auspices of an IGO may not be readily recognized by the commercial world to act as an impartial arbiter.
5. We will continue to follow the process with interest.
Yours sincerely,
Dr. Ludwig Weber
Director, Legal Bureau