Re: DNS: trading domain names

Re: DNS: trading domain names

From: Geoff Huston <gih§>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 18:27:35 +1000
At 11:04 AM 31/12/96, Nick Andrew wrote:
>Forwarding a message from Geoff Huston:
>>  - obtaining a name should involve a mandatory public notification period. Any
>>    party which feels that its intellectual property rights are about to be infringed
>>    may use this period to contact the applicant and work through the issue in
>>    whatever manner the parties see fit.
>Although I have no objection to a waiting period per se, I don't see how
>"public notification" is going to be an effective tool to protect the
>rights of 3rd parties.


>In conclusion then, I don't see that "public notification" is going to
>end the legal challenges.

I must note that this is NOT my idea. It comes from a member of the
the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and a member of INTA -
a US legal group also concerned with the issues of intellectual property and
use of domain names. I bow to their superior judgement and greater
level of familiarity with due process as it concerns the management of
intellectual property rights.

Regarding the actual mechanism of publication, while five years ago I would
agree that using the Internet to announce the intention to use a name was a
bit like whispering in a dark deserted corner, I find that I simply cannot agree
with you with reference to the Internet of today. There is a significant
level of infrastructure that can make an Internet-based announcement
an effective mechanism for public notification of intent to use a name,
and there are a whole swag of legal folk who make a business scanning such
announcement areas in other media alerting their clients to potential
infringements of intellectual property rights.

And in response to your assertion that such a mechanism would not reduce
the level of legal challenge, I would contend that it has the capacity to damp
the challenge level down considerably:

- claims _before_ usage cannot include any damage component,

- the matter can be more readily adjudicated if both parties agree to
  adjudication given the absense of a damage component,

- the name is not deployed, so any advance investment in the DNS
  name is undertaken solely at the party's discretion, and is not
  a significant factor in the case of a usage dispute,

- a party which does not choose to act during the notification weakens
  any subsequent case it may case to launch on the basis that
  it did not act to protect its intellectual property at the time.



(This touches on subject matter that is related to the work of the International
Ad-Hoc Committee (IAHC,, of which I'm a member, so I
need to add the comment that the above views are personal, and do not
necessarily reflect those of the IAHC as a body)


Network Technical Manager    Locked Bag 5744,
Telstra Internet             Canberra  ACT  2601

ph  +61 6 208 1908
fax +61 6 248 6165

And as a quick postscript  ....

Copyright of the original material in this message is asserted by Geoff Huston
Permission to reproduce those parts of this message authored by Geoff Huston, in whole or in part, in
any medium other than the Internet is expressly NOT provided by the copyright owner.
Received on Tue Dec 31 1996 - 19:09:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:02 UTC