>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Subject: Re: WIPO meeting March 10
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
>X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 4
>
>Professor Froomkin:
>Our thanks is to you for all your work on the WIPO Panel of Experts.
>
>What you have said in your message below is even more concerning than your
>point of correction to the DNRC press release (which we are happy to accep=
>t).
>If I understand you correctly, you wrote that the changes between WIPO RFC=
>-2
>and RFC-3 were so substantial that it appeared to you to be a "wholly new
>document" and that "few" of your changes, corrections and concerns were
>"reflected in the final draft."
>
>These facts are immensely troubling because as the "public interest" advoc=
>ate,
>your views are critical to the representation of individuals, small busine=
>sses
>and entrepreneurs in the WIPO process. Expediency at the cost of the publ=
>ic
>interest is not a compromise we can accept.
>
>Kathryn Kleiman
>CoFounder, Domain Name Rights Coalition
>
>
>In a message dated 2/28/99 5:06:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]=
>.edu
>writes:
>
>>
>> I think we all owe DNRC thanks for their tireless attention to the WIPO
>> process. Nevertheless, regarding the the description of the WIPO
>> "Experts" participation in drafting, I feel obligated to correct one de=
>tail
>> for the record regarding the account offered in the press release quote=
>d
>> below. In my "Critique of RFC 3" I wrote the following:
>> <blockquote>"37. While our debates are, I am told, confidential, I thin=
>k
>> it breaks no confidence to say that our meeting in Geneva was not a
>drafting
>> session. Rather, we were invited to comment on the issues, and
>> discussed
>> the texts we had been given. WIPO then revised the texts very
>> extensively,
>> and e-mailed us the revised versions. We had only a very short turnarou=
>nd,
>> of a few days late in the holiday season, to comment by e-mail on what
>> was, to my eye, a wholly new document. WIPO then made some
>> additional changes, including the insertion of new material, and on Dec=
>.
>> 23, 1998 WIPO issued RFC 3, the =93Interim Report,=94 which contains WI=
>PO=92s
>> first draft of its proposals. As WIPO itself acknowledges in RFC 3,
>> paragraph
>> 29, this is WIPO=92s report, and the experts are merely advisors."
></blockquote>
>>
>> There is a sentence in the press release quoted below which states that
>> WIPO "included in the final version extensive amounts of new text
>> the
>>
>> panel of experts never saw". The "extensive" in my paragraphabove=
>
>> referred to the changes between what we saw in Geneva, and what we later=
> SAW
>> by e-mail. While there were some changes after the version we were e-mai=
>led,
>> I would not say that they were "extensive" although in at least one plac=
>e
>> they were significant. (It's hard to say, we didn't get a redlined
>copy.
>> ...). Indeed, I wish that the changes had been *more* extens=
>ive,
>> since few of my (rather tardy, due to travel) commentswere reflected in =
>the
>> final draft.
>> This is, however, a relatively minor point. To my mind the major p=
>oint
>> remains that there have been very very few comments to WIPO, andthe comm=
>ent
>> deadline is now 12 days away.
>> Again, I invite readers of this list to read
><A HREF=3D"http://wipo2.wipo.int/process/eng/rfc_3.html">RFC3</A> and to r=
>ead my
>commentary
>> at <A HREF=3D"http://www.law.miami.edu/~amf/critique.pdf">
>http://www.law.miami.edu/~amf/critique.pdf </A> and to send WIPO=
>
>> their comments.
>> I hope that after Singapore, more attention can focus on the WIPO
>process....
>> Ellen Rony wrote:<blockquote TYPE=3DCITE>Press Release
>> February 27, 1999
>> Domain Name Rights Coalition
>> Contact:
>> Kathryn A. Kleiman
>> Co-Founder, Domain Name Rights Coalition
>> 703/518-5184
>> Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> PRESS RELEASE
>> DOMAIN NAME RIGHTS COALITION APPLAUDS WIPO PUBLIC INTEREST ADVOCATEAND U=
>RGES
>> SMALL BUSINESS AND PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS TO ATTEND WIPO MARCH 10 MEETI=
>NGIN
>> WASHINGTON, DC
>> Alexandria, VA-- The Domain Name Rights Coalition (DNRC) applauds thefif=
>ty-
>> page critique of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)dom=
>ain
>> name plan released last week by Professor A. Michael Froomkin, thepubli=
>c
>> interest advocate on WIPO's "Panel of Experts" (reachable from
>> <A HREF=3D"http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/">
>http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/</A>). Also, DNRC urges small
>> businesses and
>> public interest groups to attend the last open meeting on the
>WIPOproposals,
>> just announced for March 10 in Washington, D.C.
>> The WIPO proposal (now in its final draft), entitled "WIPO RFC-3 Interim
>> Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process," proposes a new, globa=
>l
>> system for resolving domain name disputes through mandatory
>> arbitrationpanels
>> administered by WIPO.
>> "Professor Froomkin's critique proves what DNRC has long feared - thatWI=
>PO
>> remains insensitive to the problems of individuals and small businesses=
>,"
>> said
>> DNRC President Mikki Barry.
>> The Froomkin critique outlines in detail the flaws in the WIPO proposal,
>> including:
>> * Beyond a few introductory phrases paying lip-service to the principles=
>of
>> noncommercial use, the WIPO system fails to recognize the validityor
>> importance of the noncommercial uses of the Internet such as
>politicalspeech,
>>
>> consumer protection, and personal expression.
>> * The WIPO system expands the protections enjoyed by famous marks beyond=
>even
>> the most generous protections now recognized in any jurisdiction inthe
>> United
>> States, Europe or the rest of the world, and threatens to include
>> intellectual
>> property rights that are not universally recognized, such as the Europe=
>an
>> "right of personality." This expansion would provide corporations=
>and
>> politicians with powerful tools to silence critics whose right to self-
>> expression would otherwise be protected under national law.
>> * The WIPO system would let commercially sophisticated businesses intimi=
>date
>> individuals and small businesses into giving up domain names by threate=
>ning
>> them with potentially expensive arbitration under a system they donot
>> understand, in a language they may not know, outside the protectionof t=
>heir
>> national courts.
>> * On the other hand, the WIPO system provides no protection to domainnam=
>e
>> holders from frivolous challenges, no certainty as to how conflictswill=
> be
>> resolved, and no limit to the number of challenges a domain name holder=
>may
>> face.
>> In addition to pointing to the flaws in the proposal, Professor Froomkin=
>'s
>> critique also points to serious flaws in the process. Accordingto=
>
>> Professor
>> Froomkin, WIPO has made no effort to publicize these proceedings outsid=
>ethe
>> narrow world of trademark interests and those who follow trademarkissue=
>s.
>> Further, Froomkin speaks of the limited role WIPO permitted to its "pane=
>lof
>> experts" - on which Froomkin participated as a public interest advocate=
>.&
>> nbsp;WIPO
>> provided the experts with little time to review drafts (Froomkin speaks=
> of
>> material left "under the door of our hotel rooms the
>nightbefore
>> our first
>> meeting"), and included in the final version extensive amounts of newte=
>xt
>> the
>> panel of experts never saw.
>> "Sadly, the experts at WIPO feel that they know what's best for everyone=
>,"
>> said Kathryn Kleiman, General Counsel of the Domain Name Rights Coaliti=
>on.
>> Kleiman saw a similar attempt to speed through a nearly identical syste=
>min
>> September 1997, when WIPO tried to set up "administrative challengepane=
>ls"
>> to
>> settle domain name disputes. Complaints by DNRC and others tothe
>> Department
>> of Commerce, however, forced supporters of the administrative
>> challengepanels
>> to back down and use a more open process. Kleiman adds: "Thereare=
>
>> people at
>> WIPO who believe they should be in charge of deciding Internet issues,
>> whatever the cost or 'collateral damage' to individual rights or small
>> businesses."
>> The WIPO Request for Comments (RFC)-3 proposal is available at
>> <A HREF=3D"http://wipo2.wipo.int/process/eng/processhome.html">
>http://wipo2.wipo.int/process/eng/processhome.html</A>. Comment=
>s on
>> RFC-3 are
>> due March 12 and should be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> DNRC urges organizations or individuals with a concern about the
>WIPOpolicies
>> to attend the final WIPO Panel of Experts meeting in Washington, D.C.at=
> the
>> Department of Commerce on March 10, 1999. The sign up sheet
>> isavailable at
>> <A HREF=3D"http://wipo2.wipo.int/process/eng/processhome.html">
>http://wipo2.wipo.int/process/eng/processhome.html</A>(under the
>> "consultations"button).
>> Copies of comments should also be sent to the ICANN board which maythis =
>week
>> adopt controversial aspects of WIPO's RFC-3 -- prior to WIPO'sfin=
>al
>> open
>> meeting and publication of its final version of the report.</blockquote=
>>--
>> A. Michael Froomkin WIPO-related matters:=
>amf@
>> law.miami.edu
>> Professor of
>Law &
>> nbsp; "It's warm here"
>> U. Miami School of Law , P.O. Box 248087
>> Coral Gables, FL 33124, USA
>> +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) |
><A HREF=3D"http://www.law.tm">http://
>> www.law.tm</A>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don't bother me. I'm living happily ever after.
