'Stamp out cybersquatting': summit gets off on wrong foot

Domain name registrars from 66 countries are meeting today in what is hailed as the first serious international attempt to stamp out cybersquatting on country code domains.

But already there are signs of disagreement among the participants. Earlier cooperation has been complicated because different countries have developed their own procedures for resolving cybersquatting cases. The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) is presiding over the meeting in Geneva. Top of the agenda for the day is the promotion on a global basis of UDRP (uniform dispute resolution policy), the domain name arbitration procedure WIPO developed to deal with cybersquatters on top-level domains such as dot-com and dot-org. Seventeen smaller countries have already adopted the policy, but Nominet, adminstrator of the UK country code domain, has stated that it is reluctant to sacrifice its own resolution procedure in favour of UDRP. According to Eleanor Bradley, customer services officer with Nominet, its procedure differs from UDRP because it includes a mediation process, through which over one third of cases have been resolved. It also deals with all domain name disputes, not just those regarding registered trademarks. Bradley said that Nominet is keen to hear any new proposals put forward by WIPO, but believes that UDRP needs to be modified to take into account regional differences. Francis Gurry, assistant director general WIPO, agreed that it won't be an easy task to get many of the bigger countries to adopt a new procedure. "I think many countries will be looking very carefully at UDRP before adopting it because they're afraid they will lose their autonomy. I don't think it's a strong or a valid argument, but I think, especially in a good faith dispute, that countries will be more in favour of retaining their own autonomy," he said. Gurry claimed UDRP is the most efficient resolution procedure because it avoids involvement with the courts. However intellectual property lawyer Dawn Osborne, a partner with Willoughby & Partners, claims some cases require court intervention. She warns that the UDRP does not permit injunctions if a domain name needs to be closed immediately, and does not provide for payment of damages to any partner. "Often the UDRP is sufficient in cases of garden variety cybersquatting, but legislation can offer wider scope. It would be nice to see UDRP applied to country code domains, but it would be a very good second best if countries put their own procedures in place that were as efficient," she said.