Re: where the waiting peroid came from

[John Leslie <john@jlc.net>]

Rick H. Wesson wrote:
> 
> Folks check out where the waiting period came from.
> 
> http://plaza.interport.net/inta/intaprop.htm

   I'm not sure whether comments to INTA will be effective -- it's
obviously a group of (apparently U.S.) lawyers looking first of all
at their own interests.

   From their document:
] 
] Some may argue that this Proposal is not a solution on the dispute
] front because it requires a victim of infringement to go to court,
] and incur substantial cost and inconvenience in the process.

   I would argue that. Dispute resolution should not be forced on an
overloaded court system if other reasonable alternatives are available.

] But going to court is how civilized societies deal with infringements
] of rights and other wrongs.

   Their prejudice is obvious. :^(

   Most societies deal with most infringements of rights without going
to court. It is necessary to hear an occasional case in court to establish
the precedent -- future cases are usually resolved less formally (until
someone thinks s/he can convince a judge to rule differently).

] There is no legitimate reason why domain names should be treated
] differently than other forms of infringement.

   There is _every_ reason why domain names should be treated differently
from most forms of trademark infringement -- domain names are essentially
addresses. They should be treated as we treat other addresses -- not as
we would treat commercial printing.

   The first thing netizens should expect of domain names is stability.
We should not just expect it; we should demand it. It is not reasonable
for a URL to suddenly point somewhere else just because some judge who
doesn't understand the 'net yet says there's a trademark infringement.

] On the other hand, when one wants to participate in society in a manner
] that may result in the infringement of another's rights, one must be
] accountable for one's activities.

   I'm all for accountability, but my idea of accountability is a bit
different from these lawyers'.

   They want to have every SLD require annual renewals "in writing and
signed with a real signature"; and they want 90 days to sit on initial
applications (also "in writing and signed with a real signature")
before letting the registrant use the domain. Is this "accountability"
or is it just slowing down the Internet to a lawyer's pace?

   They also want every registrant to specify "name and address of the
designated agent for service of process". Does the Post Office require
a designated agent for service of process before they let you use a
postal address?

   Besides, any actual infringement would come from some particular
content published on a particular host which might be registred under
that SLD. They can serve process all they want, but without establishing
that the person (individual or corporate) that registered the SLD has
accepted responsibility for _everything_ done on subdomains, they won't
have done anything to further accountability. They're preparing to
fight last year's legal battle. :^(

] Again, there is no reason why this principle of civilized society
] should not apply to activities on the Internet.

   Except, perhaps, that the Internet is international in scope, and
they've described a process designed for courts of limited geographical
jurisdiction.

   That there should be accountability for activities that infringe
another's rights, I absolutely agree. Whether what they've proposed is
a reasonable system of accountability, I'll let you judge.

>From requirements for SLD application:
] 
] that applicant admits to the personal and subject matter jurisdiction
] and venue of any competent tribunal in the country where the NIC resides

   They want _all_ actions in U.S. courts! (The referenced document is
proposing changes to the current InterNIC system).

   Furthermore, they want challengers to be able to choose _any_ court
in the United States (not just the ones near Herndon, Virginia)! Is
the choice of a court thousands of miles from the infringer's home a
reasonable system of accountability?

] for purposes of any action brought under trademark law, unfair
] competition laws, or similar/related laws arising out of actual or
] intended use of the domain name applied for;

   Did I get that right? They want me to agree to be sued in an unnamed
court thousands of miles from where I live and work because someone
alleges I may have _intended_ to violate somebody's rights? Is that
about "accountability" at all? Or is that about thought control?

] and applicant waives all rights to challenge personal jurisdiction,
] subject matter jurisdiction, and/or venue.

   Honest! that's what this document says! If you want to register a
SLD, they ask you to waive any rights to have the case heard where the
infringement occurred. What was that case where a California couple
was tried in a Tennessee court for publishing obscenity (in California)
-- using Tennessee standards for what the community might find offensive?

   This does not look to me like a system of accountability -- it looks
like a system for increasing lawyers' income. :^(

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>