| 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