(Original) Conflict resolution revisited

["Gert Blij" <gert@itst.co.za>]

I thank this list for the great discussion WRT to my original posting on
conflict resolution. I thought it was very positive and worthwhile.
Unfortunately the issues posed were only discussed at the fringe.

I would like to draw your attention to the gap in attitudes towards the
legal and ownership problems between the US  and the international
participants of this list. Almost without fail the US participants fully
accept that *all* problems can and should be solved in a US court. They
simply fail to grasp that the majority of societies outside the US are a)
not as "lawyer centric" :-) as the US  and b) that it is virtually
impossible for people residing in other nations to partake in this US based
legal bun fight.

I was pleased to note that app. 40% of the IAHC committee is made up of non
US members, as I understand that this represents the approximate make up of
the Internet community at present, i.e. 60% in the US and 40% outside. This
also means that the *full* IAHC committee is (should be) representing 10s
of millions of Internet users outside the US and I  implore them to be very
aware of their responsibility in this regard.

Let me add two concrete suggestions WRT future domain name conflict
resolution:

1	Let's try to continue along the lines of the idea posted by the lady from
Paris (I forgot her name (sorry :-( ) but do remember she was born in
Poland). The gist was that a legal entity should be created that would have
the authority to judge in cases of conflict and whose judgment would be
final. (Sounds a bit like the concept of arbitrage). This entity would to
the best of its ability check the legality of an application and when
challenged decide based on a predefined set of rules. (Here one could even
think of posting domain names applied for for a certain period for the
Internet community at large to comment and/or protest. Very much like
private clubs do with new member applications. This could prevent a lot of
hassle with applications allocated and being in use already, only to be
challenged later, which could be costly to the user if the original
allocation is taken away).

I wonder if Mike Godwin of the EFF is lurking on this list. I know he has
done a lot of pretty advanced thinking WRT to the law and the Internet.
Would love to see his comments. (If not, maybe anyone who knows him could
invite him)

2	There will always be the problem whether apple.com should be allocated to
Apple Computers or the International Apple Growers Association since both
of them would have the word "apple" in their trademark, but to discourage
the greedy/not so honest operators, why not prevent any one person/entity
from owning more then a certain numbers of domain names (say 3 or 5). This
would prevent the hi-jacking of large banks of high profile domain names
with the intention to "sell them back" to the original trademark owners.
I appreciate that exceptions to this rule should be allowed in cases where
large corporations genuinely own lots of trademarks. OK, create a separate
procedure at a separate pricing structure (they can afford it). My gut feel
says that these can't be more than a few percent of all applications (but
might be wrong here), but at least it allows for the smooth and fast
propagation of the (i)TLD's for the majority of organisational Internet
users.

My R 0,02 worth (= app. US$ 0.0043)
Cheers
Gert
______________________________________________
Gert Blij  (gert@itst.co.za)   ITST (Pty) Ltd
22 Sluysken Road, Hout Bay, 7800, South Africa
+27/(0)21/ work & fax: 790 2724    h: 790 3342
http://www.aztec.co.za/itst