[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
CIGREF comments on the guidelines
Dear members of the Board,
The present message is posted on behalf of the French CIGREF (Club
Informatique des Grandes Entreprises Francaises), as a formal comment
to the Registrar accreditation guidelines and shared registration
We first provide a brief presentation of CIGREF hereafter (I.-), and
CIGREF's comments themselves (II.-).
I. - Presentation of CIGREF
The CIGREF is an association which members are 86 large French
companies representing 2/3 of the total turnover of 100 leading
organisations in France with an expenditure of 100 billion FF in the
domain of IT, and representing 90 000 Information System
professionals. Except for IT suppliers, which may not be members of
the association CIGREF Members comprise the full spectrum of sectors
interested in the IT field.
The CIGREF has a long standing involvement in the Internet related
topics, it is a member of AFNIC's board (registry of the .fr ccTLD)
and has been deeply involved for many years in management of limited
ressources such as Internet addresses, phone numbers and frequencies.
These comments are part of the formal comments submitted by CIGREF,
which consist of comments on :
- Icann membership,
- DNSO applications,
- Registrar accreditation guidelines and shared registration system.
The full document of these issues can be found at :
II. - CIGREF comments on registrar accreditation guidelines and
shared registration system
1. NSI information system shall be Y2K compliant.
2. The shared registration system shall be Y2K compliant.
3. Besides, due to domain names being a worldwide limited resource,
all members of the shared registration system (incl. NSI) shall run
total quality operating procedures and be ISO 9001 certified or
4. Famous and well-known trademarks shall not be attributed to any
registrant in the present or future gTLD's without prior written
approval (in a four weeks notice) from the trademark holder(s).
5. We globally support the WIPO RFC-3 Interim report. The following
should in addition, in our opinion, be taken into account :
6. The contract considered in § 46 between the registrant and the
registrar shall be in written, and specify that law of the place of
incorporation of the registrar is applicable to this contract and
that registrant accepts jurisdiction of national courts of the place
of incorporation of the registrar. The contract may be in electronic
form where law applicable to the contract considers electronic form
as legally equivalent to the written signature. The contract should
contain provisions recommending trademark searches to the
7. Any registrant of a domain name shall make a representation of
the rights it previously holds on the denomination : trademark,
corporate name, name of an association, personal name, etc. and
provide evidence of such rights, which shall be acceptable under the
laws applicable to such denomination. Registrars shall make a formal
check of the documentation provided. Written evidence shall be
required where law applicable to the registrant's right and national
law of the registrar do not both consider electronic form as
8. Signed contract and evidence of rights are required. They may
nevertheless be provided within a certain time after online
registration and activation of the domain name if written form is
required. In any case no activation shall occur unless payment of
fees has arrived to the registrar.
9. Inaccurate or unreliable information in the registration
agreement shall constitute a material breach of the contract and be
the basis for cancellation of the domain name by the registrar.
10. Anonymous domain name registrations do not seem a reasonable
choice in our opinion, even through a known agent.
11. In the process of registration of a domain name the arbitration
may be mandatory or optional as proposed by WIPO RFC-3. If optional,
the arbitration shall be deemed to be chosen unless otherwise
expressed by the registrant.
12. Any registrar of a domain name shall be in a position to enforce
a decision of a competent arbiter or of a competent court.
13. The mandatory submission to the administrative dispute
resolution procedure should extend to an alleged violation of
intellectual property rights, covering copyright and trademarks, and
also abusive use, through a domain name, of an existing corporate
name, name of an association, personal name, or any right over a
denomination evidenced in documents which shall be acceptable under
the laws applicable to such denomination.
14. Substantive rules for administrative dispute resolution shall be
described, not only procedural rules. We do not think that the
following criteria are relevant : length of time of registration of
the domain name should be taken into account; time taken before
disputing the domain name; nature of the TLD in which the domain is
15. We do not think appropriate to create appeal of administrative
decisions. Nevertheless appeal of arbitration decisions could be
16. Country Code TLD (ccTLD) should not be part of the shared
registration system, except under special conditions. If the
registration of ccTLD were to be considered, the shared registration
should only be accessed by the registrars located in the relevant
country of this country code. Rules for registration and management
of disputes shall be a common ground for every ccTLD. All ccTLD
registrars of a country shall agree upon the rules applicable for
the ccTLD. If new rules result in modifications from the currently
existing system, these rules could not reduce protection of third
parties interests, for instance by reducing verifications made on
rights claimed by the registrant of a domain name, and could not
alter existing naming conventions in the currently existing ccTLD
(i.e. : co.uk, tm.fr, etc.).
Raoul FUENTES - mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
ITEANU & Associes - Law Firm
166, rue Fbg St-Honore 75008 PARIS
e-mail: email@example.com - http://www.iteanu.com