nettime's_roving_reporter on 13 Jul 2000 17:51:57 -0000


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> Son of WIPO


<http://wipo2.wipo.int/process2/rfc/rfc1/index.html>
   
                  World Intellectual Property Organization
                    Second Internet Domain Name Process
   
   WIPO RFC-1
   
   Request for Comments On Terms of Reference, Procedures and Timetable
   for the Second WIPO Internet Domain Name Process
   
   
   1. This is a Request for Comments (RFC) on the proposed terms of
   reference, proposed procedures and suggested timetable for the Second
   WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, to be convened by the World
   Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
   
   
   Introductory Remarks
   
   2. The Report of the first WIPO Internet Domain Name Process (The
   Management of Internet Names and Addresses: Intellectual Property
   Issues) (the Final Report), published in April 1999 1, acknowledged
   that its recommendations targeted only the most egregious problems
   caused by the tension between domain names and trademarks, and that
   other issues would require further consultation 2. Since the
   publication of the Report, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
   and Numbers (ICANN) has adopted a number of the recommendations
   contained in it, including suggested best practices for registration
   authorities and the establishment of a mandatory and uniform dispute
   resolution policy for the generic top-level domains (gTLDs). In
   particular, the adoption by ICANN of the Uniform Dispute Resolution
   Policy (UDRP) on December 1, 1999 has demonstrated -- through the very
   substantial number of cases filed -- that an administrative procedure
   for rightholders to resolve their domain name disputes is of great
   value to the Internet community.
   
   3. On June 28, 2000, the Director General of WIPO received a request
   from 19 of WIPO's member States to initiate a new study, to address
   certain issues involving the recognition of rights and the use of
   names in the Internet domain name system (DNS) where uncertainty and
   concern remains 3. The request calls upon WIPO -- through a
   consultation process similar to the first WIPO Process - to initiate a
   study of, and to develop recommendations on, these outstanding domain
   name issues, which it is suggested should include, inter alia, the
   "bad faith, abusive, misleading or unfair use of:
     * Personal names;
     * International Nonproprietary Names (INNs) for Pharmaceutical
       Substances;
     * Names of international intergovernmental organizations;
     * Geographical indications, geographical terms, or indications of
       source; and
     * Tradenames."
       
   4. The request specifies that "this activity should take full
   advantage of WIPO's prior work and build on existing and ongoing
   discussions while allowing for a process of consultation with WIPO
   Members and all interested stakeholders." Further, it directs that the
   "findings and recommendations should be submitted to the Members of
   WIPO and for consideration by the Internet community (including the
   Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers)." It also states
   that, "in undertaking this process, it would be beneficial if any
   information received or collected concerning technical solutions to
   domain name collision control was collated for the information of WIPO
   Members and the Internet community."
   
   5. Since the time of the first WIPO Process, discussions have
   continued in various fora, particularly at the meetings of ICANN, in
   respect of the management of the DNS. WIPO intends that the Second
   WIPO Process should take full account of, and build on, the
   substantial progress that has been made in the course of these
   discussions, insofar as they relate to the intellectual property
   issues to be addressed in the Second Process. WIPO will cooperate
   closely with ICANN throughout the Second Process to consult and to
   coordinate developments in this area.
   
   
   Draft Terms of Reference
   
   6. The following proposed terms of reference are intended to define
   the scope of the Second WIPO Process, and the principal issues it will
   address. Comments are sought from interested parties on these terms of
   reference and, in particular, whether they properly define all
   questions that should be addressed. Interested parties are requested
   not to address the substance of the issues described in the terms of
   reference at this stage, but to address only whether issues mentioned
   are appropriate for the Process, whether they are adequately
   described, and whether any further issues should be included. After
   the terms of reference have been finalized, the second RFC to be
   published will request comment on the substance of the issues raised
   in the terms of reference.
   
     A. Scope of Issues in the Second WIPO Process: The Second WIPO
     Process will explore, and develop findings and recommendations in
     relation to, issues raised in the DNS, inter alia, by bad faith,
     abusive, misleading or unfair use of:
     
     * Personal names,
     * International Nonproprietary Names (INNs) for Pharmaceutical
       Substances,
     * Names and acronyms of international intergovernmental
       organizations,
     * Geographical indications, geographical terms, or indications of
       source, and
     * Tradenames.
       
       A different set of considerations, based on the nature of the
       rights or interests involved in each of these areas, may be
       brought to bear on the questions of whether any protection should
       be accorded, and, if so, in what circumstances and how. Therefore,
       a separate list of issues for comment is provided below for each
       area.
       While undertaking to develop findings and recommendations on these
       issues, the Second Process will also investigate the availability
       of any technical solutions that might serve to reduce the tension
       between domain names and other protected rights.
       Parties are invited to submit comments on whether there are any
       further areas to those listed above, relating to the interface
       between intellectual property and cognate rights and the DNS,
       which it would be appropriate to include in this study and
       consultation.
       
     B. Personal Names: Recommendations will be formulated on whether
     any protection against abusive registration as a domain name in the
     gTLDs should be accorded to personal names and, if so, in what
     circumstances and how.
     
   List of Issues:
       The list below is submitted for comment by interested parties as
       the suggested list of issues to be covered in the study:
       
     (i) Should personal names be protected against bad faith, abusive,
     misleading or unfair registration and use in the DNS?
     (ii) Which personal names, if any, should be protected:
     
     - all names,
     - names of famous persons,
     - names of government officials or other persons in the public eye.
     
     (iii) How do you define bad faith, abusive, misleading or unfair
     registration and use in respect of personal names?
     (iv) How do you deal with multiple incidences of the same name?
     (v) What provision, if any, should be made for dispute resolution
     with respect to disputes concerning personal names registered as
     domain names?
     (vi) Would directory, listing or other similar services aimed at
     avoiding domain name conflicts concerning personal names be useful,
     and, if so, please describe such services?
     
     C. International Nonproprietary Names (INNs) for Pharmaceutical
     Substances: Recommendations will be formulated on whether any
     protection against abusive registration as a domain name in the
     gTLDs should be accorded to INNs and, if so, in what circumstances
     and how.
     
   An "INN" is a specialized, unique name used to identify a
       pharmaceutical substance or active pharmaceutical ingredient
       (e.g., ampicillin). INNs are selected by the World Health
       Organization (WHO) in order to promote and protect the safety and
       health of patients worldwide, by providing a single, globally
       available name for each such substance. WHO maintains a list of
       protected INNs, now numbering approximately 7500. To qualify, INNs
       must be distinctive in sound and spelling, so as not to be liable
       to confusion with other commonly used names, and must be in the
       public domain and therefore freely available for this use.
       List of Issues:
       The list below is submitted for comment by interested parties as
       the suggested list of issues to be covered in the study:
       
     (i) Should INNs be protected against bad faith, abusive, misleading
     or unfair registration and use in the DNS?
     (ii) How do you define bad faith, abusive, misleading or unfair
     registration and use in respect of INNs?
     (iii) What provision, if any, should be made for dispute resolution
     with respect to disputes concerning INNs registered as domain
     names?
     (iv) What provision, if any, should be made for the establishment
     of exclusions for INNs?
     (v) If an exclusion is considered to be useful, how should any
     exclusion protection take place?
     (vi) Would directory, listing or similar other services aimed at
     avoiding domain name conflicts concerning INNs be useful, and, if
     so, please describe such services?
     
     D. Names of international intergovernmental organizations:
     Recommendations will be formulated on whether any protection
     against abusive registration as a domain name in the gTLDs should
     be accorded to the names and acronyms of international
     intergovernmental organizations and, if so, in what circumstances
     and how.
     
   Names and acronyms of international intergovernmental organizations
       are currently protected against use and registration as trademarks
       by the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property
       (Paris Convention) and through the Agreement on Trade-Related
       Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement).
       List of Issues:
       The list below is submitted for comment by interested parties as
       the suggested list of issues to be covered in the study:
       
     (i) Should the names and acronyms of international
     intergovernmental organizations be protected against bad faith,
     abusive, misleading or unfair registration and use in the DNS?
     (ii) How do you define bad faith, abusive, misleading or unfair
     registration and use in respect of the names and acronyms of
     international intergovernmental organizations?
     (iii) What provision, if any, should be made for dispute resolution
     with respect to disputes concerning the names and acronyms of
     international intergovernmental organizations registered as domain
     names?
     (iv) What provision, if any, should be made for the establishment
     of exclusions for the names and acronyms of international
     intergovernmental organizations?
     (v) If an exclusion were considered to be useful, how would any
     exclusion be implemented?
     (vi) Would directory, listing or similar other services aimed at
     avoiding domain name conflicts concerning the names and acronyms of
     international intergovernmental organizations be useful, and, if
     so, please describe such services?
     (vii) Which international intergovernmental organizations should
     receive any such protection in the DNS (e.g., international or
     regional organizations, all organizations that have followed the
     notification provisions of the Paris Convention)?
     
     E. Geographical indications, geographical terms, or indications of
     source: Recommendations will be formulated on whether any
     protection against abusive registration as a domain name in the
     gTLDs should be accorded to geographical indications, geographical
     terms, or indications of source and, if so, in what circumstances
     and how.
     
   Geographical indications, geographical terms, or indications of source
       (collectively "geographical indications") receive protection under
       the Paris Convention, the Madrid Agreement for the Repression of
       False or Deceptive Indications of Source of Goods (Madrid
       Agreement), the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of
       Appellations of Origin and their International Registration
       (Lisbon Agreement) and the TRIPS Agreement. A "geographic
       indication" is one which identifies a good as originating in a
       territory, or region or locality within a territory, where a given
       quality, reputation or other characteristic of that good is
       essentially attributable to its geographic origin. An `indication
       of source' is a term that refers to an indication of a geographic
       place of origin of a product (e.g., Florida oranges).
       List of Issues:
       The list below is submitted for comment by interested parties as
       the suggested list of issues to be covered in the study:
       
     (i) Should geographical indications be protected against bad faith,
     abusive, misleading or unfair registration and use in the DNS?
     (ii) How do you define bad faith, abusive, misleading or unfair
     registration and use in respect of geographical indications?
     (iii) Which geographical indications, if any, should be so
     protected (e.g., those receiving protection under the Paris
     Convention, Madrid Agreement, Lisbon Agreement, TRIPS Agreement,
     others)?
     (iv) What provision, if any, should be made for dispute resolution
     with respect to disputes concerning geographical indications
     registered as domain names?
     (v) What provision, if any, should be made for the establishment of
     exclusions for geographical indications?
     (vi) If an exclusion is considered to be useful, how should any
     exclusion protection take place?
     (vii) Would directory, listing or similar other services aimed at
     avoiding domain name conflicts concerning geographical indications
     be useful, and, if so, please describe such services?
     
     F. Tradenames: Recommendations will be formulated on whether any
     protection against abusive registration as a domain name in the
     gTLDs should be accorded to tradenames and, if so, in what
     circumstances and how.
     
   A "tradename" is a name adopted, and often registered, by a business
       enterprise to distinguish itself, as a commercial entity, from
       other enterprises. Unlike trademarks and service marks, tradenames
       operate to distinguish a business on the basis of its character,
       independently of the goods or services that the business offers.
       Tradenames receive protection under the Paris Convention (Article
       8), without the obligation of a filing or registration.
       List of Issues:
       The list below is submitted for comment by interested parties as
       the suggested list of issues to be covered in the study:
       
     (i) Should tradenames be protected against bad faith, abusive,
     misleading or unfair registration and use in the DNS?
     (ii) How do you define which tradenames would be eligible for any
     such protection?
     (iii) How do you define bad faith, abusive, misleading or unfair
     registration and use in respect of tradenames?
     (iv) What provision, if any, should be made for dispute resolution
     with respect to disputes concerning tradenames registered as domain
     names?
     (v) Would directory, listing or similar other services aimed at
     avoiding domain name conflicts concerning tradenames be useful,
     and, if so, please describe such services?
     
     G. Technical Solutions for Domain Name Collision Control: An
     investigation will be made into the availability of any technical
     solutions to reduce the tension and minimize disputes concerning
     rights and interests in domain names. In the first WIPO Process,
     comments were sought, in the context of the prevention of domain
     names disputes, on the following aspects:
     
   "The requirements of any domain name databases (including the type of
       information to be stored therein) that may be developed to allow
       domain name applicants, holders of intellectual property rights,
       and other interested parties to search for and obtain information
       for purposes of evaluating and protecting any potentially related
       intellectual property rights. These requirements may include, in
       particular, the need to make the information accessible through a
       common interface and to interlink databases that may be maintained
       by various registries and/or registrars in order to permit single
       comprehensive searches.
       The possible use of directory and listing services, gateway pages
       or other methods aimed at avoiding trademark and domain name
       conflicts by allowing identical names to co-exist, thus overcoming
       the technical requirement that each domain name be unique."
       
   In the intervening period, new technical solutions may have developed
   that could serve to reduce the tension and prevent conflicts between
   competing interests in each unique domain name, principally where the
   competition is between persons or entities with good faith interests
   in the name. Information is now sought on the development of such
   technical solutions, and comments are sought on whether these
   technical solutions may offer realistic options for resolving
   conflicts between rightholders and domain name registrants.
   
   7. While the above are the main topics to be addressed, WIPO will, on
   the basis of comments received on this Request for Comments (WIPO
   RFC-1), develop a final listing of all issues on which comments shall
   be solicited and recommendations formulated.
   
   
   Proposed Procedures
   
   8. As with the first WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, the Second
   WIPO Process will be conducted in a balanced and transparent manner
   with a view to the international Internet community. To that end, WIPO
   invites all interested parties to participate, with the aim of
   achieving consensus among all stakeholders of the Internet on the
   issues concerned.
   
   9. The Second Process will be undertaken through a combination of
   Internet-based discussions and in-person consultations. It will be
   conducted on the basis of a number RFCs that are to be made available
   to the public through publication on the web site and through
   transmittal by electronic or regular mail. All interested parties are
   invited to submit comments on the RFCs through a special form that is
   available under the Comments section of the web site, or by electronic
   or regular mail if necessary.
   
   10. WIPO will acknowledge receipt of each comment and post it publicly
   on the web site. WIPO reserves the right not to post any comment that
   is obscene or otherwise clearly fails to constitute a contribution
   relevant to the discussion of the issues raised in the RFCs. WIPO will
   not issue any specific responses to the comments it receives. All
   comments, however, will form the basis for the findings and
   recommendations to be developed.
   
   11. In order to ensure that interested parties have the opportunity to
   present their views on the issues to be addressed by the process, WIPO
   will also hold a series of regional consultations. The location of
   these meetings will be determined with a view to ensuring wide
   geographical representation. The views presented at these meetings
   will, in addition to the comments on the RFCs, serve as the basis for
   WIPO findings and recommendations.
   
   
   Timetable
   
   12. The Second WIPO Process is intended to consist of the following
   steps, culminating in a final report to be submitted to the members
   States of WIPO and for consideration by the Internet community
   including ICANN:
   
     a. Publication of the present WIPO RFC-1 on the draft terms of
     reference setting out the proposed scope of the project, including
     the issues to be addressed, the proposed procedures and a suggested
     timetable for completion of the work.
     b. Publication of WIPO RFC-2 containing the finalized terms of
     reference and issues to be addressed.
     c. Regional consultations to receive comments on WIPO RFC-2.
     d. Preparation of a draft interim report on the basis of all
     comments received on WIPO RFC-2.
     e. Publication of the interim report as WIPO RFC-3.
     f. Regional consultations to receive comments on WIPO RFC-3.
     g. Preparation and publication of the final report on the basis of
     all comments received during consultations and on WIPO RFC-3.
     
   13. It is expected that the Process will take less than nine months to
   be completed. As mentioned above, WIPO will seek to coordinate its
   plans with ICANN. The following table proposes a draft implementation
   plan, reflecting the various stages in the Process.
   
                                    Date
       
                                  Activity
   
                                  July 10
   
                    Announcement of Second WIPO Process
   
           Publication of WIPO RFC-1 on draft terms of reference
   
                                 August 2-3
   
              Consultation in conjunction with WIPO Ecommerce
   
                   Regional Meeting in São Paolo, Brazil
   
                                 August 3-4
   
              Consultation in conjunction with WIPO Ecommerce
   
                  Regional Meeting in Chiang Mai, Thailand
   
                                 August 15
   
                   Final date for comments on WIPO RFC-1
   
                                September 8
   
             Publication of WIPO RFC-2 (issues to be addressed)
   
                           September 18-20, 2000
   
              Consultation in conjunction with WIPO Ecommerce
   
                     Regional Meeting in Ahman, Jordan
   
                               October 25-26
   
              Consultation in conjunction with WIPO Ecommerce
   
                     Regional Meeting in Krakow, Poland
   
                                November 17
   
              Final date for comments on issues in WIPO RFC-2
   
                             Nov. 20 - Dec. 31
   
                         Drafting of Interim Report
   
                              January 26, 2001
   
                 Publication of Interim Report (WIPO RFC-3)
   
                              February - March
   
                       Further Regional Consultations
   
                                  March 31
   
           Final date for comments on WIPO RFC-3 (Interim Report)
   
                                   April
   
                          Drafting of Final Report
   
                                  May 2001
   
                        Publication of Final Report
   
   Request for Comments
   
   14. This WIPO RFC-1 requests participating parties to submit comments
   on:
   
     a. The draft terms of reference, as specified in paragraphs 6 and 7
     above;
     b. The proposed procedures, as specified in paragraphs 8 through 11
     above;
     c. The proposed timetable, as specified in paragraphs 12 and 13
     above.
     
   15. Comments can be submitted by the following means:
   
     a. Through the Submit Comment form that is available under the
     Comments section of the web site. We recommend that you choose this
     method for the submission of your comments.
     b. By electronic mail to the following address:
     process.mail@wipo.int
     c. By regular mail to the following address: WIPO Internet Domain
     Name Process, World Intellectual Property Organization, 34 chemin
     des Colombettes, P.O. Box 18, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland.
     
   16. All comments must be received by August 15, 2000.
            ____________________________________________________
   
   Footnotes:
   
   1. Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process (April 30, 1999),
   WIPO Publication No. 439(E).
   
   2. See Report, Executive Summary, First Steps and Outstanding Issues,
   pp. 8-9.
   
   3. The request is made in a letter from the Minister for
   Communications, Information Technology and the Arts for the Government
   of Australia, in which WIPO is requested by the Australian Government
   on its own behalf and on behalf of 18 other member States to initiate
   the new study. An attachment to the letter indicates that the
   following States and the European Union endorse the request:
   Argentina, Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, United States of
   America, European Union. The attachment also states that the
   Government of Brazil will communicate its support through its
   diplomatic mission in Geneva.
     

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net