Kerry Miller wrote:
> > Litigation has
> > related solely to the actual content of the URL and I am unable to
> > understand how this is more of a technical function than is the content
> > of the web page.
> >
> > On the other hand, ICANN is not tasked with the coordination of web
> > content, but only that of names, addresses and parameters, so perhaps
> > that is a basis for distinction.
> >
> I'm sure you didnt mean the cynical reading: ICANN is tasked
> with technical administration; therefore any factor that it thinks
> needs administering is _ipso facto_ technical. Otoh, what *did you
> mean?
I was thinking that the nature of the cause of action might be a more
relevant basis than whether or not the subject matter was technical or
non-technical. On reflection, that probably won't take us very far.
>
> It is all too easy to imagine that the rumours of EU involvement
> pertain exactly to this:
> Business needs to protect its trademarks;
> The net therefore has to have a UDR.
>
> WIPO has a UDR;
> ICANN can impose it on gTLDs;
> Therefore national gov'ts have to impose it on ccTLDs.
I dunno. I think it would be lovely and convenient for everyone, not just
the business interests, if there were UDR for all TLDs. US law protects
non-commercial use of names as well as common-law, state and federal
trademarks. If the UDR adopted a similar policy, I suspect that most of us
US lawyers would probably feel pretty comfortable with it.
Unfortunately, gTLD policy ignores non-commercial, common-law and state name
rights. The original WIPO proposals favored commercial interests also. So
there is justifiable concern that the final WIPO UDR will not offer
protection equal to US law and that fear is heightened when the individual
and non-commercial interests are excluded from the "authoritative" proposal
process. They fear that business interests will be given undue priority if
individuals aren't heard until too late in the process or if individual
speakers are dismissed as unrepresentative.
The point is that everyone who has an interest that is threatened will need
time to reflect and consider the alternatives. Part of accepting change is
understanding the advantages and just plain getting used to it. The debate
itself is part of the adjustment process. IMHO, the sooner these interests
are made a part of the debate, the more chance they have to ensure that it is
fair to them and (just as importantly) the more time they have to understand
the legitimacy of opposing views and come to an acceptance of the ultimate
decision.
Diane Cabell
http://www.mama-tech.com
Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
Boston, MA
