<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [alac] Re: [alac-admin] suggested WIPO edits
- To: "Sebastian Ricciardi" <sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [alac] Re: [alac-admin] suggested WIPO edits
- From: Esther Dyson <edyson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 19:36:23 -0400
Yes, very solid! thanks!
Esther
At 03:01 PM 4/29/2003, Sebastian Ricciardi wrote:
Works for me.
Sebastian
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:denisemichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>Denise Michel
To: <mailto:alac-admin@xxxxxxxxx>ALAC members
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 3:20 PM
Subject: FW: [alac-admin] suggested WIPO edits
Thanks, Wendy. Looks good to me. Are others comfortable soliciting
comments on this version? Again, this would be a draft for
posting/comment -- subject to further ALAC revision -- *not* a final
version you need to approve.
Let me know.
Thanks.
Denise
-----Original Message-----
From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 11:05 AM
To: Denise Michel
Cc: ALAC members
Subject: Re: [alac-admin] suggested WIPO edits
Thanks Denise,
I think your edits strengthen the piece overall. I've made a few changes,
toning down the praise for UDRP (I still don't like it!) and clarifying a
few sentences. On the appendix, I'm of mixed minds. Since, as you note,
the Board is already on track to have the GNSO initiate policy
development, I thought we might get a jump start on having our substantive
thoughts on the PDP considered at this time. Others' thoughts?
I've pasted suggested revised text below and attached a Word doc.
--Wendy
Introduction
The Interim At-Large Advisory Committee <http://alac.icann.org/> thanks
the Board for the opportunity to comment
<http://forum.icann.org/mail-archive/alac/msg00179.html> on the
recommendations
<http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gurry-letter-to-cerf-lynn-21feb03.htm>
concerning the protection of the names and acronyms of intergovernmental
organizations
<http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gurry-letter-to-cerf-lynn-21feb03.htm#ANNEX1>
(IGOs) and of country names
<http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gurry-letter-to-cerf-lynn-21feb03.htm#ANNEX2>
in the DNS, communicated to ICANN by the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) on February 21, 2003.
The present comments focus on the ALAC's basic concerns with the subject
matter of these recommendations, which appears to be out of scope of
ICANN's limited mission. We would submit a more detailed analysis of the
recommendations proper if and when WIPO's recommendations are subject to
policy-development processes.
<http://www.icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-25feb03.htm#AnnexA>
Subject Matter Concerns
ICANN's mission and core values
<http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#I> have a clear focus on the
organization's technical coordination function -- ICANN is clearly not
intended to be an international law-making body. Rather, ICANN acts within
a framework of national and international laws. It serves to provide
architectural support for existing laws, not to make new laws.
Both ICANN and WIPO have followed this principle relatively successfully
in the past, when establishing the UDRP <http://www.icann.org/udrp/> as
an inexpensive method to address the bad faith registration of others'
trademarks as domain names, while deferring to the courts in situations in
which several parties may have legitimate claims to a domain name.
Underlying the UDRP is a body of law which is reasonably uniform,
internationally.
In the Committee's view, two key features of the UDRP help to keep ICANN
out of any lawmaking role.
First, the UDRP addresses only situations where a complainant has rights
under existing trademark laws. Decisions are specifically required to be
made in accordance with the rules and principles of law that the panel
finds applicable. The UDRP implements existing law which has been
developed by well-established governmental law-making mechanisms. It does
not create new trademark law.
Second, parties dissatisfied with UDRP rulings can obtain judicial review
in an appropriate court. This helps to ensure that the UDRP does not
supersede applicable national law.
The Committee is concerned to observe that WIPO's recommendations on the
protection of the names of IGOs and countries seem to contemplate creation
of rights in names without support in existing law. Indeed, WIPO's
September 2001 Report of the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process (The
Recognition of Rights and the Use of Names in the Internet Domain Name
System <http://wipo2.wipo.int/process2/report/html/report.html> ,
September 3, 2001, "WIPO Report") recognizes that there is no basis in
existing law for the rights in domain names that the current
recommendations seek to have implemented through forced cancellation or
transfer of domain names.
In the case of the WIPO recommendations on IGOs, paragraph 138 of the WIPO
Report describes the limited nature of rights of IGOs in their names and
abbreviations under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention. In paragraph
168, the WIPO Report recognizes that cancellation or transfer of domain
names through an ICANN-mandated administrative procedure:
would involve, at least in cases not involving the use of domain names as
trademarks, the creation of new international law. It would represent an
extension of the principles in Article 6ter of the Paris Convention, the
Trademark Law Treaty and the TRIPS Agreement. While it is believed that
such an extension is desirable, it would require a legitimate source in
international law. It would be for States to determine the appropriate
basis for such an extension of law, either in the form of a resolution of
a competent treaty organ, a memorandum of understanding duly accepted by
national authorities or a treaty.
Despite these observations, WIPO has now transmitted recommendations
calling for creation of a mandatory administrative procedure, disregarding
existing law's limitations on rights in IGO names and abbreviations. The
recommendations would also remove the current UDRP's assurance that
existing legal principles will be observed. Instead, the recommendations
replace the right to review in a national court applying national law with
only a binding arbitration mechanism, applying the "extension of
principles" of established law, as described in the WIPO Report.
In the case of the WIPO recommendations on country names, the WIPO Report
is even more direct about the lack of basis in existing law. It states in
paragraphs 286 and 287:
286. . . . Rather than expressing agreement or disagreement with this
position [favoring exclusive rights in country names], we draw attention
to the following fundamental characteristics of the debate, as they have
emerged from the Second WIPO Process:
(i) The question of the appropriateness of the registration of country
names in the gTLDs is inextricably linked by some governments to what they
perceive to be their national sovereign interest.
(ii) Protecting country names in the gTLDs would require or amount to the
creation of new law, a function traditionally reserved for States.
287. Both points lead us to conclude that we have reached the limits of
what can be achieved legitimately through consultation processes, such as
the WIPO Internet Domain Name Processes or any similar ICANN
processes. In other words, we agree with those commentators who are of
the view that this particular question is more appropriately dealt with by
governments.
Despite this clear recognition that there is no basis in current law for
recognition exclusive rights to country names, the current WIPO
recommendations propose amendment of the UDRP to implement those "rights."
We believe that it would be inappropriate for ICANN to assume the role of
an international legislator, and to try to establish such new law through
its contracts and policy processes. For this reason, any policy-making
processes which are based upon WIPO's recommendations in the areas of the
protection of IGOs' and countries' names must pay close attention to
staying within the confines of supporting existing, internationally
uniform law.
In view of these new difficulties -- which are less evident in the
trademark-centric review of the UDRP currently underway -- the Committee
supports the GNSO Council's recommendation to separate the UDRP's review
from discussions about implementation of WIPO's recommendations, and to
address the additional WIPO requests in a separate policy-making process.
The Committee also recommends to the Board that any separate policy-making
process begin with a careful review of the legal basis for rights that are
proposed to be created or implemented. The September 2001 WIPO Report
strongly indicates that the current WIPO recommendations propose to
implement "rights" that are not supported by existing law. The Board, in
common with other ICANN bodies, has a responsibility to take care that
ICANN adhere to its limited mission. The Committee urges the Board to
ensure that ICANN's policy development proceed only where there is a solid
legal foundation and a full understanding of the limits of existing legal
consensus.
Annex: Preliminary Analysis of the Recommendations
We note that a more precise analysis will be necessary for a final
assessment of the extent to which an implementation of WIPO's
recommendations would indeed amount to the creation of new international
law. We do not provide that analysis in this document, but will focus on a
number of remarks on the merits of the individual recommendations.
We would ask in the first instance whether there is any real problem of
mis-registration of names of IGOs and Countries, or whether perceived
problems can be solved without new ICANN intervention, for example through
use of the existing restricted .int TLD and countries' own ccTLDs. Where
such a minimally disruptive alternative is available, that should be
examined thoroughly before more extensive regulation is proposed.
Names and Acronyms of IGOs
*The committee notes that the WIPO Report disparages the .int top-level
domain for its internal limitations and lack of public awareness. Rather
than reshaping the rest of the domain name system to solve those
deficiencies, the Committee proposes that the .int TLD should be
re-examined as a dedicated TLD for IGOs.
*The language proposed by WIPO seems to apply to past and future
registrations. The committe notes that, given that most IGOs' acronyms are
short, there is a high likelihood that these might be used as good-faith
acronyms for other entities, and may have been registered in good faith.
The settled expectations of existing domain name holders should not be upset.
*Recommendation 1.A suggests a complaint system based on "registration or
use" of a domain name which need to be of a certain "nature" in order to
justify a complaint. This wording, and the subjectivity of the
determination it entails, bears a considerable risk of extending
policy-based dispute resolution mechanisms to areas touching upon the
regulation of net content. We recommend that such disputes be left to
regular courts.
*Recommendation 1.B's wording is rather comprehensive -- as presented,
this recommendation would not be limited to IGOs' names and acronyms as
registered according to Paris Convention art. 6ter, but may cover any
names and acronyms covered by any international contract. The right to
complain would be given to any IGO. This recommendation may be misread as
an attempt to use ICANN policies as an instrument for the enforcement of
arbitrary international contracts. The Committee suggests that ICANN
should seek clarification of this recommendation from WIPO.
Country Names
*The language on country names once again relies upon criteria applied to
the "registration or use" of domain names. The same concerns as above apply.
*Once again, it seems more appropriate to give each country control of its
name (and any other character strings it chooses) in its unique ccTLD, not
to grant it monopoly rights in strings across all TLDs.
At 10:34 -0700 4/28/03, Denise Michel wrote:
I think the ALAC has a powerful statement/position on the WIPO letter
(thank you Thomas & Wendy), and an opportunity for taking a leadership
position and directly effecting Board action on this issue. Based on
conversations and research, some changes are suggested (below --
additions in blue, deletes in red, notes w/ ***) that are intended to
strengthen the ALAC's case and provide the Board specific and usable
advice about how the policy-development process might proceed in a way
that is compatible with the ALACâs concerns. Please share your thoughts ASAP.
Thanks.
Denise
--
--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx || wendy@xxxxxxx
Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
Esther Dyson Always make new mistakes!
chairman, EDventure Holdings
writer, Release 3.0 (on Website below)
edyson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
1 (212) 924-8800 -- fax 1 (212) 924-0240
104 Fifth Avenue (between 15th and 16th Streets; 20th floor)
New York, NY 10011 USA
http://www.edventure.com
see my new blog (finally!) at
http://release4.blogspot.com/
Release 1.0 - the first good look
at technology that matters
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|