>Criticism #1 (continued): >The Interim Report’s presentation of evidence and anecdotes is >selective and biased >======================================================== >* Key members of WIPO’s own panel of experts support the charge of >bias. In particular, the designated “public interest” representative >on the panel, University of Miami law professor Michael Froomkin, was >so upset that he insisted that the report contain a disclaimer that >the interim report represents the view of WIPO staff and not the views >of its expert panel members. At least two other expert panel members >feel that the report did not adequately balance the claims of the >trademark interests with the interests and legitimate needs of domain >name users and other constituencies. >* Approximately 80% of the presentations made before the WIPO regional >consultations were from trademark lawyers or trademark-holding >businesses. Only a tiny handful—about four out of 155—were from >individual end users or public interest groups representing domain >name holder rights, freedom of speech, or free markets Is this really surprising given that WIPO's web page itself states that they are there to protect "industrial property" including trademarks (not domain names). Meantime, those groups such as the DNRC who spoke and offered comments were largely ignored. Given that no mention was made of reverse domain name hijacking, the thousands of non infringing domain name holders who have lost their domain names merely because someone holds a trademark, the WIPO study is biased from any objective standpoint. __________________________________________________ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END____________________________________________
