IP: FARNET's Washington Update 11/7/97

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

FARNET'S WASHINGTON UPDATE --- NOVEMBER 7, 1997         


IN THIS ISSUE:


RESOLVING INTERNET DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES - IS AN INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK
NECESSARY?


SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE HEARS TESTIMONY ON NEXT GENERATION INTERNET  
__________________________________________________________________
 


RESOLVING INTERNET DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES - IS AN INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK
NECESSARY?


November 7 - The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual
Property heard testimony this past Wednesday on potential remedies for
resolving Internet domain name disputes concerning trademark infringement.
As Internet commercial usage increases globally, and a new privatized
international domain name system evolves, settling domain name disputes
across international boundaries has become more of an issue. There is no
universally accepted international regime that resolves Internet domain
name trademark disputes. Registrars such as Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI)
are not required to check for any trademark infringement when processing
Internet domain name requests.  That burden falls to the person or company
who believes their unique trademark is being used without their consent.
Currently the national courts provide the only forum where challenges to
Internet domain names may be filed. 


NSI requires that all domain name holders that register with them agree
with the NSI Dispute Policy. However, according to the NSI's CEO Gabriel A.
Battista, the NSI Dispute Policy is not intended to resolve domain
name-trademark disputes; rather, it provides an administrative means for
trademark owners to deal with domain name holders, while granting domain
name holders five options to avoid temporary suspension of the domain name
until the dispute is resolved. Details on the type of options NSI makes
available to domain name holders were not included in Battista's testimony.
   
Some are looking to technology as a potential solution.  Michael Kirk,
executive director of the American Intellectual Property Law Association
envisions a worldwide trademark registration database. Kirk's database
would be a telephone-directory like system that would correlate domain
names and trademarks. Internet users and trademark owners could type in the
proper keyword and be directly linked to the Internet site using that
domain name. As a possible solution for sharing generic names such as
"United.com", Kirk suggested using "Gateway Technology" that would link an
Internet user to a common web site that could be used to list the websites
of companies sharing that domain name. While this might help to minimize
domain name/trademark conflicts, maintaining such a global database and
deciding whether an international organization would carry out the
administrative functions could be difficult. Many in Congress are wary of
relinquishing control over Internet functions or protocols to a third
party, believing that the U.S. should be in charge of the medium it created.


According to the U.S. Commissioner of Patents Bruce Lehman, the majority of
respondents to the Commerce Department's Request for Public Comment last
July on domain name policy issues favored the establishment of an
alternative dispute resolution procedure administered by the World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). 
(see http://www.wipo.org ) (WIPO would only provide the arbitration
facilities and would not itself act as a mediator or arbitrator.)
Currently, WIPO has a representative on the interim Policy Oversight
Committee (iPOC), created after the Internet International Ad Hoc Committee
(IAHC) was dissolved last May. Under a current iPOC proposal an
Administrative Challenge Panel(ACP)would be created whereby applicants for
domain names would agree to abide by the decision of the panel or submit to
non-binding mediation/arbitration in settling domain name disputes. Domain
name service registrars would agree to enforce the decisions of the ACP.
The iPOC proposal envisioned the ACP process as only a temporary measure
until an international framework evolves that can deal with domain
name/trademark issues.


Lehman reasserted that the Clinton Administration was wary of having any
international organization settle domain name disputes, in keeping with the
theory that the Internet should be "private-sector based and
self-regulatory."   


Scarcity of domain names has exacerbated the problem of resolving domain
name disputes. A solution proposed by the IAHC was to create seven new
generic top-level domain names (gTLDs) -.firm, .shop., .web, .arts, .rec,
.info, and .norm. Trademark owners have expressed concerns that adding
these new gTLDs will only increase the burden of policing the Internet for
trademark infringement.  Despite these concerns and government haranguing
over the domain name issue, the recently formed Internet Council of
Registrars (CORE) signed a contract with Emergent Corporation 
( http://www.emergent.com )to operate a central registry depository for any
new domain names utilizing these gTLDs. Unlike the current system, domain
name applicants wishing to use these new gTLDs may register with over
eighty registrars worldwide.  Such a system would follow the competitive,
private-sector formula promoted by the Clinton Administration.


Whether arbitration of domain name disputes under the aegis of an
international organization such as WIPO becomes a widely accepted solution
remains to be seen.  Such a device might be considered irreconcilable with
and the perception of the Internet as a "self-regulatory" body, but may
ultimately become necessary for the efficient and uniform resolution of
domain name disputes.  


For hearing testimony see http://www.house.gov/judiciary/4.htm


SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE HEARS TESTIMONY ON NEXT GENERATION INTERNET  


November 7 - The Senate Commerce subcommittee on Science, Technology and
Space heard testimony on the Next Generation Internet (NGI) last week.
With NGI's recent success in garnering $95 million in appropriated
congressional funds, the questions posed to the panelists focused on how
the funds will be spent by the federal agencies involved and on general NGI
management issues. 


According to Dr. John H. Gibbons, Assistant to the President, Office of
Science and Technology Policy, the National Science and Technology Council
(NSTC) that he chairs will be responsible for coordinating the efforts of
the Federal agencies involved in NGI research. Each agency will concentrate
on Internet issues relevant to their particular expertise and agency
mission - DARPA's focus will be on advanced network research, NASA's on
specialized network testbeds, NIST will concentrate on standards
development, NSF will continue to cultivate its relationship with the
academic community, and the NIH will focus on health care applications.  It
is hoped that by combining the agencies resources and having them act in
their respective areas of expertise the primary goals of NGI will be
facilitated: the evolution of network technologies and testbeds and the
development of advanced Internet applications.  


Despite not receiving any funding for NGI research for fiscal year 1998,
the Department of Energy (DOE) was represented at the hearing.  Dr. Martha
Krebs, Director of Energy Research at DOE, stated that her agency wanted to
be a full participant in NGI. She cited the DOE 2000 initiative 
( http://www.mcs.anl.gov/DOE2000/ )  which uses advanced computing
technologies to accelerate research and collaboration technologies to
enable static DOE facilities to be utilized by research partners scattered
among national labs, academia and industry. While DOE is not a part of NGI
for fiscal year 1998, DOE potentially could receive NGI funds the following
year if Congress is convinced that the agency's work is compatible with NGI
research funding.


Another issue raised at the hearing involved connecting rural areas to the
Internet.  Dr. John Miller, Professor and Director of the Center of
Computational Biology at Montana State University, stated the problem is
dependent on money; because of their remoteness, rural areas simply do not
have the telecommunications infrastructure necessary to support advanced
Internet research. Dr. Gibbons stated that his NGI-coordinating office is
concerned with avoiding " economic and rural discrimination" and has
invited rural universities to participate in NGI research.  Through federal
grant programs such as the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research (EPSCoR) and private initiatives such as Internet2 ( see
http://internet2.edu ), rural universities are becoming increasingly
involved with the NGI project and advanced Internet applications research.
    
Senator John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) cited an "information deficit" in
Congress concerning technology issues and inquired whether a body could be
created to provide members and their staff with accurate, current education
on information technology issues.  Dr. Gibbons replied that such an office
once existed in the Office of Technology and Policy which was eliminated by
Congress.  


For hearing testimony see
http//www.senate.gov/~commerce/hearings/hearings.htm      


 
____________________________________________________________________


Written from FARNET's Washington office, "FARNET's Washington Update" is a
service to FARNET members and other interested subscribers.  We gratefully
acknowledge EDUCOM's NTTF and the Coalition for Networked Information (CNI)
for additional support.  If you would like more information about the
Update or would like to offer comments or suggestions, please contact
Garret Sern at garret () farnet org.
















































































**************************************************
"Photons have neither morals nor visas"  --  Dave Farber 1994
**************************************************