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

[Fwd: [ifwp] Re: [dnsproc-en] analysis of the wipo interim report, part 2]


  We agree completely with Mikki's comments below regarding the
proposed WIPO study.  As spokesman for some 85,000 Stakeholders
we find that the WIPO has as usual conducted this study in a manner
that is not in keeping with the White Paper's requirements of
openness and Transparency as by design the purposefully excluded
any organizations, companies, or individuals that were not in agreement
with their already well know predetermined conclusions.


Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

---- Begin included message ----
>Criticism #1 (continued):
>The Interim Report’s presentation of evidence and anecdotes is
>selective and biased
>* Key members of WIPO’s own panel of experts support the charge of
>bias. In particular, the designated “public interest” representative
>on the panel, University of Miami law professor Michael Froomkin, was
>so upset that he insisted that the report contain a disclaimer that
>the interim report represents the view of WIPO staff and not the views
>of its expert panel members. At least two other expert panel members
>feel that the report did not adequately balance the claims of the
>trademark interests with the interests and legitimate needs of domain
>name users and other constituencies.
>* Approximately 80% of the presentations made before the WIPO regional
>consultations were from trademark lawyers or trademark-holding
>businesses. Only a tiny handful—about four out of 155—were from
>individual end users or public interest groups representing domain
>name holder rights, freedom of speech, or free markets

Is this really surprising given that WIPO's web page itself states that
they are there to protect "industrial property" including trademarks (not
domain names).  Meantime, those groups such as the DNRC who spoke and
offered comments were largely ignored.

Given that no mention was made of reverse domain name hijacking, the
thousands of non infringing domain name holders who have lost their domain
names merely because someone holds a trademark, the WIPO study is biased
from any objective standpoint.

To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org

To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:

To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:

Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.

---- End included message ----