Public Comments on the "Consultation Paper on the Review on Administration and Assignment of Internet Domain Names and Internet Protocol Addresses in Hong Kong"

Subject: consultation paper/ domain name in Hong Kong
 

Dear Madams and Sirs,
 

I provide my personal opinion on the paper for your reference. Though the task force makes great progress to reform the present hk domain name mechanism. There are following points that may be improved:
 

1. alternative dispute resolution mechanism
 

It is stated in the page 18 that the dispute resolution procedure will be invoked if evidence of trademark or service mark is provided. However, it is not clear whether worldwide trademark or service mark (may be further certified) can be acceptable, for it is disappointed if only trademark or service mark in hk is acceptable. In fact, in present dispute resolution policy , the HKNIC only accepts local trademark. It is a poor restriction, which is contrary to the former Network Solution resolution policy or present ICANN policy.
 

2.domain name for individuals
 

According to the paper,each individual can only register one domain name in a new second-level domain category. This is another disappointed restriction--only one domain name limited in a one new category not able to extend to other categories. Supposing this is is a way to prevent cybersquatting, but if there is alternative dispute resolution procedure, there is no need to resort to this kind of way. Domain name registration shall be free to all, individual or company, foreigner or local resident , in order to promote the development of internet service in hk. Substantiality of alternative dispute resolution procedure is to provide a less costly and more efficiency way than court proceeding to solve domain name disputes. If this administrative procedure is established, it will be easy for right claimant to claim back domain name even if cybersquatting arises. So really no need to impose so much restriction on registration procedure.
 

3. second-level domain category being selected for a particular domain name application should correspond to the business nature of the applicant
 

This is another over-restrication. I suppose that the underline policy is also to prevent cybersquattering. But it again sacrifice the freedom to develop internet service. A company's business nature definitely may be changed according to market and it may register a domain name for today or future's business. It shall be given such freedom to make a choice. Moreover, as said in point, with the efficiency alternative dispute resolution procedure, the registration procedure shall be more free and open. Otherwise, what the alternative procedure is for?
 

Sincerely yours,

Mark Jiang