|
MINUTES - IPC Meeting May 10, 2001 (San Francisco, CA, USA) The following are the minutes of the IPC Meeting held on May 10, 2001 in San Francisco, California, USA. Susan Anthony served as scribe. (1) NEW TLDs: .INFO AND .BIZ Following introductions, the IPC discussed the draft letter from the IPC to ICANN regarding .biz, the final copy of which is posted at http://ipc.songbird.com/dot_biz_statement.html. An earlier version of the letter was sent to ICANN by Steve Metalitz following review and comment by the IPC Officers, upon learning that the ICANN's approval of the .biz application was imminent. As there was not time for IPC formal approval, the letter was not sent as an "official position" of the IPC. Following discussion of the issues raised in the letter during the meeting, the IPC voted unanimously to endorse Steve's letter as an "official position" and move it forward, with Steve Metalitz to revise the letter slightly to reflect recent events. Steve noted that most of the issues raised in the letter can be fixed. The IPC also discussed the difficulty in advising trademark clients how to proceed, i.e., whether they should spend money on trying to obtain registrations in the new gTLDs. The IPC voted unanimously to set up two task forces to (1) (short-term task force under J.Scott Evans) within the coming week, develop timetables and frequently-asked questions (FAQs) about .info and .biz for posting on the IPC Website and (2) (longer-term task force under Neal Greenfield) develop guidelines for evaluating .info and .biz from intellectual property owners' viewpoint. Neal plans to have a preliminary proposal for evaluating the new gTLDs by the ICANN Meeting in Stockholm, Sweden (June 1-4, 2001). (2) NEW TLDs: OTHER
Also discussed were the other new TLDs, .name and .pro. There have been a number of discussions with .name. While there has been considerable progress regarding issues of concern to the IPC, particularly in connection with WHOIS, more discussion is needed regarding WHOIS. This domain, albeit restricted to personal names, has lots of potential for abuse that must be anticipated. The IPC has not seen problems with .pro. This registry has proposed initially to roll-out into U.S., Europe, and Japan. Several IPC participants indicated that .pro should roll out globally rather than regionally so that no one is disadvantaged. Nick Wood will communicate this concern to Netsearchers, which has a part ownership interest in .pro. There also is some political pressure on ICANN to bring the other three TLDs up-to-speed and in roughly the same position (.aero, .coop, .museum). Jonathan Hudis recommended that Jonathan Cohen, ICANN Board Member, urge ICANN to work toward a unified WHOIS across registrars, that is infinitely searchable. (3) INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES (IDNs) The IPC discussed its draft response to the ICANN Survey on Internationalized Domain Names ("IDNs"), which project is being led by Jane Mutimear. The idea behind internationalized domain names is that those who use non-Roman script should be given the same opportunity to participate in the Internet as those who use Roman script. From the trademark owner's perspective, though, the transliteration and transcription of Roman script into non-Roman script can amount to trademark infringement in certain circumstances, which likely depend on how the Roman script is used in that country. To the meeting participants' knowledge, there are no international treaties addressing transliteration or transcription of marks. Regarding possible measures to address cybersquatting, a "Sunrise" proposal is too late, but the UDRP remains a viable option (although it was questioned whether the UDRP would cover or is enough). The inherent problems for intellectual property owners regarding internationalized domain names are expected to substantially increase once technical problems associated with current browsers are addressed. [As it now stands, browsers cannot read non-Roman script.] Participants discussed the approach of urging resolution of technical problems prior to addressing these other questions. Nick Wood noted that some businesses are starting to believe that there may be value in such domains, but they are concerned about "grandfathering" of their registrations into any new systems for IDNs that may be adopted. Jane will prepare a paper that will clarify the issues regarding IDNs for intellectual property owners. Jonathan Cohen also suggested the establishment of a cross-constituency committee that could study these issues, although concern was expressed that such a group could unnecessarily duplicate the efforts of the Names Council committee on IDNs. Jonathan noted that he was not suggesting an overlapping or competing effort. [No action was taken on his suggestion.] Jane is looking for IPC members who use non-Roman script to assist her in clarifying the IDNs issues. (4) ccTLD DEVELOPMENTS Guillermo Carey is the IPC's primary contact on ccTLD issues; he was unable to attend this IPC meeting. Steve Metalitz reminded the IPC that WIPO issued its "best practices" paper on ccTLDs in February 2001, which was open for comment through April 30. Most of the comments were supportive of the preliminary report, so a final paper is expected soon. It will be helpful for the IPC to have a general outline of what the ccTLDs should be doing and IPC Members should think of ways in which the ccTLD paper could be used. It was mentioned that there is a new dispute policy in the U.K. that will be rolled out around September, similar to the UDRP but with some improvements, and the U.K. modified UDRP will use U.K. panelists. The registry also will have a default mechanism in contrast with the UDRP, in which the claimant must go through the entire procedure even though the domain name registrant has not responded. Petter Rindforth reported that Sweden also is working on a new system that may encompass other intellectual property rights, such as copyrights, and that system is expected to be operational in 2002. Petter noted that WIPO has recommended that both systems be offered, but he does not know the reasoning. The .mx (Mexico) registry uses a modified UDRP, with the wording "register or use" rather than "register and use". (5) WHOIS in ccTLDs/gTLDs Mark Bohannon has been involved in conducting a survey of websites in existing WHOIS databases. Mark said that the IPC should be concerned because of the inadequacy of these databases, e.g., many websites do not get the viewer easily to existing WHOIS information (when the WHOIS information could be found) and many do not have accurate much less available information. Susan Anthony noted that inaccurate and more often inadequate information continues to be a problem in the gTLDs, as well. J.Scott Evans suggested that the IPC ask Louis Touton, ICANN counsel, regarding the steps that ICANN is taking or plans to take to ensure that registrars are complying with the ICANN WHOIS requirements for accurate and complete information. Jonathan Cohen suggested that the IPC develop a list of minimum standards acceptable to IP-rights owners and then explore ways of promoting these positions beyond ICANN. It also was noted that asking registrars what they have done regarding WHOIS does not keep the burden on ICANN to ensure compliance with its requirements. Mark will prepare a draft letter reporting the findings with suggestions for what ICANN can do to address these deficiencies. It also is anticipated that the findings may show that a majority of ccTLDs do not offer WHOIS data. Nick Wood reported that a chopping off of access to zone files by a number of ccTLDs is making it difficult to perform many of the functions important to intellectual property owners, e.g., trademark/domain name watching. He noted that Germany, as an example, has not allowed access to updated zone files in about a year. (6) UDRP DEVELOPMENTS Jane Mutimear reported that the Max Planck Institute is undertaking an independent review of the UDRP process. Initially planning on reviewing all cases, the Institute has since decided that there are too many cases to do so, but that it will review a significant number of them. Various issues are being reviewed, e.g., type of right involved, degree of similarity between right and registration, type of use made of domain name, type of organization involved, etc. The Institute is expected to provide an update at the ICANN Meeting in Stockholm (June 1-4, 2001). A final report is expected around September. Comments to the WIPO-2 Process are due by June 8. Petter Rindforth reported on the 1st Consultation in Brussels, noting that participants there seemed to favor extended protection for personal names over current protection under UDRP (only if personal name functions as trademark), all seemed to agree that trade names should be included, and geographical indicators and other issues were regarded as complicated questions, though. The IPC voted unanimously not to file a separate response to the WIPO-2 Process, although IPC Members are encouraged to participate fully in the process. (7) FOLLOW-UP ON VERISIGN COMMITMENTS RE WHOIS Steve Metalitz noted that the WHOIS commitments made by VeriSign in connection with renegotiation of their registry agreement with ICANN and suggested that the IPC assemble a task force to work with VeriSign in addressing these issues, which involve both technical and policy questions. Steve asked the IPC members to identify people within their organizations with technical expertise to populate the task force. Mark Bohannon agreed to take the lead in getting the IPC to identify the right people for the task force.
Axel Aus der Muhlen represents the IPC on this Names Council Committee which is chaired by Paul Kane. A questionnaire is under development and should be completed by Stockholm for solicitation of views on possible changes to WHOIS. IPC Members should be alert for this public comment opportunity. (9) NAME SPINNING By request, the IPC discussed whether to get involved in activity to discourage name spinning by registrars. J.Scott Evans noted that the name spinning issue is one in which the IPC should not become involved. Jane Mutimear agreed, noting that "name spinning" is an automated program generating additional possible domain names, i.e., "If you like Domain Name [X], you may wish to register Domain Name [XY], Domain Name [XYZ], etc." Jane also noted that some sites have a disclaimer, disclaiming any responsibility for a domain name identified by the name-spinning program, which should be encouraged in her view. The IPC did not vote, but the consensus was not to pursue this issue. (10) TREASURY Treasurer Andrew Collins forwarded his report to Steve Metalitz; there is about $18,265 in the bank account, and the ICANN invoice is $15,371 (each constituency gets the same bill). The IPC voted unanimously to pay the ICANN invoice. Also, the Treasurer will be instructed to send a reminder notice to those listed as not having paid their 2001 assessments, and the Secretary will drop from the membership rolls those who have not paid their 2000 assessments. (11) MEMBERSHIP Nick Wood reported that the IPC has had a number of applications and proposed that 10 of the new applicants (all of the Category 1 applicants) be accepted. There was one application (Category 3) requiring further clarification. The IPC Membership Webpage has generated 19 new inquiries and 5 have applied using the on-line system. Nick hopes to reach 250 new members this year. Nick is translating the Membership Webpage into German and also hopes to translate it into French, Spanish, and Italian. (12) IPC WEBSITE The IPC would like to refresh its website, making sure that the By-laws on the site are the current version, ASAP. IPC Members were urged to review the IPC Website on a regular basis, since new information is constantly being added. Jane Mutimear asked for a list of who is under the e-mail list. Kent Crispin, IPC ISP, will work with Mark Bohannan to set up an "announce" listserv for membership. Also, volunteers were identified for translating at least certain documents on the website into Arabic, Italian, Spanish, and Japanese. It also was agreed that the designated "point persons" for various topics would be listed on the website for the use of IPC Members. (13) UPCOMING MEETING IN STOCKHOLM The IPC will hold a meeting as part of the ICANN Meeting in Stockholm, Sweden (June 1-4, 2001). The IPC will meet on Friday, June 1, Intellectual Property Constituency (12:30 - 18:00) (Room K12). For more information, see http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ip/ip.html. The next ICANN Meeting thereafter will be in Montevideo (Sept. 6-10). The meeting ended about 12:30 p.m. --END OF MINUTES-- |