Re: [Bimi] Today's BoF

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 4/1/2019 9:44 AM, Wei Chuang wrote:
>     And any effort to use 'validated' logos at scale has no history, where
>     the challenges in doing that have been well- and often-cited.
> 
> 
> Agreed these are significant risks.  What's done to mitigate this is to 
> map this on to the existing registered trademark system, and leverage 
> those precedents.


Wei,

I'll cite the anecdote I keep telling, about an interaction on a 
pre-ICANN committee, where the WIPO representative -- an attorney, of 
course(*) -- said that there were discussions underway for resolving 
international issues regarding trademark.  This would have made Internet 
domain name disputes much, much simpler.

Then he acknowledged that the discussions had been underway for 100 
years, with no immediate resolution in sight.  That was 20 years ago and 
I haven't heard that they have yet produced a solution.

So forgive me, but I believe that "the existing registered trademark 
system" does not handle the kind of problem created by Bimi.  Not even 
close.  To the extent that you believe it will -- and will do it at 
scale -- there needs to be very careful documentation of how that will 
work at a systems level.

More broadly, and while it's a non-trivial amount of work, I'm finding 
myself forced to suggest that Bimi advocates produce a life-cycle 
scenario document, that shows all aspects of administration and use of 
Bimi, including problem handling, from first actions to last.

This will permit people to evaluate Bimi holistically.


d/


(*) It's probably worth offering some contrast about his participation: 
He was also the person on the committee that proposed the model for 
dispute resolution (UDRP) that ICANN adopted and still uses.

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net