First off, we have "competition in DRP's". Theres a Dispute Resolution
Policy for com/net/org theres ones for .mil and .gov and .edu and there's
probably ones for .arps and .int although I dount they've ever been tested
(or maybe even written). There are 240 other ones for cctlds, no dount
they reflect their own national laws.
So, the idea we need a single DRP to make these things work is flawed.
We have a DRP, it's RFC 1591. It says first come first served
and that has got us this far in the evolution of the net.
While lawyers lives might be easier if there was one dispute procedure
for all TLDS, we simply do not have anough experience with various
DRPs to promate any to ubiquity and *certainly* not an completely
unproven, untested mechanism as WIPO suggests. Sorry, no way, no
how. Ask anybody with the password to a router. Make a better RFC1591 [1]
and we'll talk. 'Till then, those are the rules and if you don't like them
go and build your own network, but this is how we run this one.
I don't mean to sound arrogant, I'm just explaining how things
are from this end of the wire. In my professional opinion, knowing
the way the net works and the people that run it, it would be impossible
to implement the WIPO uniform DRP. Even if you made it the law of the land
in every land, people would still avoid and ignore it.
Refs:
[1] http://nic.mil/ftp/rfc/rfc1591.txt
4. Rights to Names
1) Names and Trademarks
In case of a dispute between domain name registrants as to the
rights to a particular name, the registration authority shall have
no role or responsibility other than to provide the contact
information to both parties.
The registration of a domain name does not have any Trademark
status. It is up to the requestor to be sure he is not violating
anyone else's Trademark.
Postel [Page 6]
RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994
At 06:43 PM 5/13/99 -0400, you wrote:
>cross-posting to the WIPO list because it's about WIPO.
>
>
>I am not thrilled with the expression "competition in DRPs" because I think
>it will lead to off-shore jurisdictions catering to pirates. I acknowledge
>that getting out from under the Damocles sword of NSI's DRP is not
>insignificant, but it is my guess (emphasize guess) that most DN owners
>will concentrate first on price and customer service before DRPs. So will
>competition in DRPs consists of promising the best justice, or in fact
>focus of minimal regulation?
>
>What public policy is served by minimalistic off shore banking regulation?
> I think anonymous no questions asked numbered bank accounts enables huge
>drug smuggling operations and dictators. I don't think public policy will
>be served by minimalistic no questions asked DN registration (talking
>commercial TLDs folks, not non-commercial). And that's what DRP
>competition would lilkely lead to.
>
>
>
>
>
>At 02:29 PM 5/13/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 04:00:25PM -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>>> Kent, let me ask you a question. DO you think the WIPO report
>>> should be adopted, scrapped or modified?
>>
>>A serious question deserves a serious answer:
>>
>>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). However, the WIPO report
>>itself leaves some questions open, so for that reason alone the DRP
>>has to be modifiable.
>>
>>Modifiability, therefore, is a requirement. And therefore, things
>>that don't work can be fixed. And, hysterical claims to the
>>contrary, things that don't work *will* be fixed.
>>
>>The advantages of having a uniform policy available immediately are
>>significant, especially given that a uniform policy is a politically
>>inescapable long-term reality. It vastly simplifies the registrars
>>lives during startup of competition.
>>
>>NSI and others have claimed that there should be competition in DRPs.
>>But adoption of the WIPO standards don't preclude competition in
>>dispute resolution -- it gives an international base level that
>>registrars can work from. Without that base level registrars will
>>arbitrage DRPs down to criminality -- competition requires rules the
>>players can count on, otherwise conflicts get bumped a level and
>>people start taking out contracts on each other.
>>
>>>
>>> If you think it should be adopted is that because it's
>>> such a great idea or because "if we just pass this we
>>> can get on with it and get that much closer to getting
>>> new tlds in the root".
>>
>>Kind of both.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> "Those who give up a little freedom for a little security
>>> will not have, nor do they deserve, either one"
>>> --Thomas Jefferson
>>
>>--
>>Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>>
>>
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Those who give up a little freedom for a little security
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one"
--Thomas Jefferson
