[Date Prev]   [Date Next]   [Thread Prev]   [Thread Next]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]

Trademark & charter issues
Post a reply
  • To: <gtld-plan-comments@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Trademark & charter issues
  • From: "Jennifer Miatt" <miattper@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 21:57:41 +1100
  • Importance: Normal


Comments on gtld implementation plan

III. A Recommendation that the Board seek DNSO (or its successor) advice on
how to evolve the top level generic namespace

MP>>This is too narrow. A wider audience should be sounded for advice,
especially given the transitional state of the 'At-Large' community.

Sponsored TLDs on the whole also raise fewer business concerns than
unsponsored TLDs. Since registrants must come from a carefully defined and
limited community, there are fewer worries about trademark infringement and

For example, the Copyright Coalition on Domain Names stated that:

We agree that many of the risks of most concern to copyright owners may be
less with sponsored TLDs, in which the sponsoring organization plays a
gatekeeper function, than in unsponsored TLDs. Even here, though, it makes
sense to have at least some idea of how the existing sponsored TLDs are
functioning before kicking off a new round.

MP>>I agree that there should be some analysis, but not purely from
copyright owners viewpoint. Copyright is not enacted purely for the benefit
of copyright owners but for the benefit of the public (& thus Internet
users) at large. Again, an area where 'At-Large' representation would be

The extent to which a proposal incorporated appropriate protections of
rights of others, including intellectual property rights, in connection with
the operation of the gTLD, especially during the start-up phases.

MP>>This is too broad. The cybersquatting provisions were deliberately much
narrower than 'intellectual property rights' per se.

the twelve Criticality 1 Questions
3. How effective have start-up mechanisms been in protecting trademark
owners against cybersquatting and other abusive registrations?

MP>>I think this too one way. This should also be looked at from the
direction of prevention of reverse-domain name hijacking, prevention of
abuse by trademark holders of regisration procedures (discouraging or
holding up legitimate - if disliked - registrations). Also this should be
looked at from the limited viewpoint of exisiting (not proposed)
international treaties. Trademark in many juristictions is enacted to
prevent consumer confusion, not to protect a 'natural right'. International
recognition of famous names, dilution, etc should be left to WIPO, and only
incorporated into gTLD charters as and when there are international treaties
that address this area. Again, this is the reason that cybersquatting was
defined in terms of 'bad-faith', not 'intellectual property'.

4. How often and how successfully have advance filtering and other
mechanisms for enforcement of registration restrictions been used, both in
sponsored gTLDs and in restricted unsponsored gTLDs?

MP>>Again, evaluation of over-restriction of registration by such mechanisms
should be carried out.

8. How effective were the different start-up mechanisms employed from both a
functional and operational perspective? To what extent did they achieve
their objectives or, conversely, cause consumer confusion, delays, legal
issues, operational problems, or impediments to smooth implementation?

The components of the Monitoring Program are
4. Monitor the degree to which registries are conforming with their charters
and other key contractual provisions, particularly with regard to including
only registrants that conform to charter specifications.

MP>>Evaluation and monitoring of charter implementation should look at the
roll-out to constituencies. For example, in the restricted unsponsored
areas, eg. prof, how many professions are now capable of registering under
this domain name? What are the prospects for the future.

Hope this is useful
Mark Perkins
SPC Librarian
IFLA/ISOC member

PS. Feedback would be useful - is there no mailing list for this process?
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.423 / Virus Database: 238 - Release Date: 25/11/2002

[Date Prev]   [Date Next]   [Thread Prev]   [Thread Next]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy