Kent Crispin wrote:
>I think it should be adopted, immediately, on a provisional basis. I
>think that the new registrars need a uniform framework for dispute
>resolution fairly early on (like: now).
They have a uniform framework. It's called the court system.
>Modifiability, therefore, is a requirement.
You are broadly optimistic in assuming that once a recommendation is
accepted it won't become the defacto way of doing things. Modification
will become an increasingly distant objective because it's easier to keep
things the way they are than to impose change.
>It vastly simplifies the registrars
>lives during startup of competition.
It is my understanding that registrars will be able to have their own
individual registration policies, e.g. whether the verboten seven words can
be registered or not. It doesn't appear that uniform policies on that end
of the equation are either urgent or even desirable in a competitive
market. Such differentiation may help customers choose one registrar over
another.
>
>I think a uniform base DRP is a great idea -- more precisely, I think
>it is an absolutely necessary precondition for private
>self-regulation of the net. Without it, complete control over all
>this *will* go to some international treaty organization. The WIPO
>recommendations aren't perfect, but they form a pretty good starting
>point, and they will evolve over time.
So I guess you think registrars should be in the business of policing
famous trademark owners marks? That is what will be required if the famous
marks exclusion becomes part of your so desirable unform base DRP. Even
forgetting that there is no worldwide agreement on what is a famous mark,
why should registrars have to build into their system alpha strings that
get automatically excluded under this provision? Who gets to decide what
those strings are? Will there be limits to the numbers that qualify under
the famous marks provision? How will the bar between famous/well-known and
infamous/lesser be determined?
And, one overlooked loophole, when a company starts out new but quickly
rises to the top of worldwide visibility and importance, at what point does
it apply for the exclusion and what happens to those domain name holders
who already have registered such names? I don't think you, WIPO or anyone
who supports that recommendation has thought through this process because
the worldwide exclusion doesn't map to rights provided in traditional
commerce.
>I also am very much in favor of new gTLDs, and it should be clear to
>anyone who has been around for very long that a uniform dispute
>resolution procedure has got to be there before we will get any new
>gTLDs.
It should be clear to anyone who has been around as long as you have that
the only order of business right now is to create the structure so that the
Internet community can have an ELECTED BOARD at the helm, not these nine
members who were thrust upon us, who are unaccountable, lack expertise in
these issues, and make their decisions behind closed doors. Any other
decisions only enflame the controversy and divert us from this elemental
primary task. IMHO.
Ellen Rony Co-author
The Domain Name Handbook ____ http://www.domainhandbook.com
======================== ^..^ )6 =============================
ISBN 0879305150 (oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010
[EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA
Dot com is the Pig Latin of the Information Age.
