| |
Public
Comments on the "Consultation Paper on the Review on Administration
and Assignment of Internet Domain Names and Internet Protocol Addresses
in Hong Kong"
| Reference
No. |
|
: |
|
DN20 |
| Date
of Submission |
|
: |
|
14.7.2000 |
| Submitted
by |
|
: |
|
Mr
Matthew Laight |
|
|
|
|
The
Hong Kong Institute of Trade Mark Practitioners |
|
|
|
|
|
SUBMISSION
ON CONSULTATION PAPER
ON THE REVIEW ON ADMINISTRATION AND ASSIGNMENT
OF INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES AND INTERNET PROTOCOL ADDRESSES
("THE CONSULTATION PAPER")
The following submission is made by the Hong Kong Institute of Trade
Mark Practitioners ("the Institute"). Our submissions are made by
reference to the headings used in the Consultation Paper.
PROPOSED INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
Policy making and administrative function relating to Internet
domain name
The Institute supports the creation of a new body to be responsible
for policy making and administrative functions. Ideally, the body
should have a statutory basis, but the Institute acknowledges that
this would be too time consuming and cumbersome to set up given
the immediate need. A viable solution, as proposed, is for a non-statutory
body to be formed but for that body to be controlled through a formal
agreement with the Government which sets out the powers and functions
of the non-statutory body.
The Institute believes the body should be non-profit making and
should be funded through the registration fees and renewal fees
of domain names. The Institute does not believe that the membership
of the body should be on a subscription basis since this may lead
to the financially stronger members taking control. The Institute
feels strongly that membership should be open to the legal profession
as well as ISPs, the commercial sector, academia and the Government.
Indeed the Institute itself believes that it has a role to play
in the policy making function of this new body.
The Institute believes that the Government should take the lead
in forming the new body. Without Government impetus, the body is
unlikely to be formed quickly.
The Institute supports the appointment of a Board of Directors to
exercise the policy making function but considers the proposal to
spin off another company with an interim board (paragraph 28) to
be too complex. The Institute believes the Government should take
the lead in setting up the Board of Directors and the new body as
a whole and should invite some members of JUCC to sit on the Board
and then extend an open invitation to others to apply for membership
of the Board.
Policy making function relating to IP addresses
The Institute is not aware of any problems relating to the allocation
of IP addresses and is not able to comment on this issue.
Administrator of the ccTLD Registry
The Institute agrees that there should be a single registrar in
Hong Kong
Registrar and agents
Whilst the Institute understands the special interest that the Government
has in ".gov" second level domains and that JUCC may have in ".edu"
second level domains, the Institute believes that the principle
of a single registrar should be followed through. There should be
no agents or sub-registrars appointed for different second level
domains. The Institute believes that to ensure consistency, there
should be a single registrar and when it comes to the issue of whether
an applicant is entitled to use ".edu" of ".gov", that question
should be outsourced to the Government or JUCC as appropriate.
DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION FOR ".HK" DOMAIN NAMES
The Guiding Principles
The Institute supports wholeheartedly the guiding principles set
out in the Consultation Paper, subject to the following comment.
The Institute believes that the principle at paragraph 34(c) is
too restrictive. There should be an unfettered right to transfer
domain names. Any illegitimate trading in domain names will be controlled
by the dispute resolution procedures.
Registration Guidelines for ".hk" domain names
(a) Reserved List
The Institute does not support the creation of a reserved list.
The Institute feels strongly that the formation and maintenance
of such a list is likely to lead inevitably to incorrect inclusions
and exclusions. Difficulties include the fact that well-known names
change over time and even obscene and indecent words and phrases
change over time. Similarly difficulties will arise from the fact
that similar marks can legitimately be used by different businesses
in different business sector. The Institute believes that this time
consuming task will take up resources unnecessarily and for no real
benefits. If any domain name issued offends any third party, then
they can rely on the dispute resolution procedures.
(b) Format and business nature of domain name
The Institute notes that the Consultation Paper refers to the fact
that in Australia and Canada there is a requirement that a request
domain name must resemble the name of the company or its products/services.
The Institute supports the fact that this is not recommended to
be adopted in Hong Kong. There are countless examples of legitimate
domain names bearing no resemblance to the company name or nature
of products/services. The Institute notes the proposal that second
level domain categories should correspond tot he business nature
of the applicant with documentary proof on the relevant registries.
Whilst the Institute considers that this appears to be beneficial,
the Institute fears that it will be cumbersome and that it will
not necessarily be a simple matter to provide documentary proof
even in legitimate cases. What sort of documentary proof does the
Task Force have in mind? Therefore the Institute believes that this
issue may be best left to the dispute resolution procedures.
(c ) "First come, first served" Principle
The Institute agrees that domain names should be issued on a "first
come, first served" basis and supports inclusion of an appropriate
declaration by the applicant that, to the best of the applicant's
knowledge, the domain name does not infringe third party's rights.
(d) Multiple domain names per registrant organization
The Institute supports multiple domain names per registrant organization.
(e) Transferability of domain names
The Institute supports the transferability of domain names but feels
strongly that it should be an unfettered right.
(f) Local presence
The Institute supports the periodical review of the requirement
that applicants for domain names must be incorporated in Hong Kong.
(g) Domain names for individuals
The Institute supports the ability of individuals to register domain
names but does not believe it should be restricted to the name appearing
on Hong Kong ID cards. An example of why the restriction is inappropriate
is an author who may wish to publish on a website under a pseudonym.
The right to apply should be without restriction and any disputes
should be left for the dispute resolution procedures.
(h) Renewal of domain names
The Institute supports the renewal of domain names and suggests
that a fee structure similar to that operated b ICANN should be
adopted, i.e. a fee for the initial two years and then renewals
on a two year basis. Whilst it has not been suggested, the Institute
wishes to make clear that it believes that proof of use should not
be a pre-requisite to renewal.
DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE
The Institute supports wholeheartedly the suggestion to follow the
ICANN dispute resolution procedure and supports the concept that
the procedure should be operated by someone other than the domain
name registrar.
The Institutes notes in paragraph 49(d) reference to the domain
name being deleted upon the successful application of a challenger
under the dispute resolution procedure. The Institute believes that
the registrar should delete or transfer as appropriate in line with
the ICANN dispute resolution procedure.
The Institute would welcome further discussion or correspondence
with the Information Technology Services Department should any queries
arises on the submission.
14 July 2000
Hong Kong Institute of Trade Mark Practitioners
|
|