[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 141 (Friday, October 9, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S12155]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NEXT GENERATION INTERNET RESEARCH ACT OF 1998
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am delighted that last night the Senate
took up and passed H.R. 3332.
I first introduced my domain name study bill, S. 1727, on March 6,
1998. It was cosponsored by Senator Ashcroft on May 21, 1998 and passed
the Senate on June 26, 1998 as an amendment to S. 1609, Senate
legislation to authorize the Next Generation Internet program. The
House passed a very similar domain name study bill on September 14,
1998 as part of H.R. 3332, its legislation to authorize the Next
Generation Internet program. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported
out a substitute amendment to S. 1727 on September 17, 1998 that was
identical to the domain name study language that is in H.R. 3332. Now,
with the Senate passage of H.R. 3332, the domain name study language
will be presented to the President for his signature into law.
The Leahy/Ashcroft domain name study legislation that is incorporated
into H.R. 3332 authorizes the National Research Council (NRC) of the
National Academy of Sciences to conduct a comprehensive study of the
effects on trademark rights of adding new generic top level domain
names (gTLDs), and related dispute resolution procedures.
When I first introduced this bill in March, it was, in part, a
response to the Administration's Green Paper released on January 30,
1988, on the domain name system (DNS), which suggested the addition of
five new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs).
Although adding new gTLDs, as the Green Paper proposed, would allow
more competition and more individuals and businesses to obtain
addresses that more closely reflect their names and functions, I was
concerned as were many businesses, that the increase in gTLDs would
make the job of protecting their trademarks from infringement or
dilution more difficult. In addition, increasing the number of gTLDs
without an efficient dispute resolution mechanism had the potential of
fueling litigation and the threat of litigation, with an overall
chilling effect on the choice and use of domain names.
The Green Paper properly raised the important questions of how to
protect consumers' interests in locating the brand or vendor of their
choice on the Internet without being deceived or confused, how to
protect companies from having their brand equity diluted in an
electronic environment, and how to resolve disputes efficiently and
inexpensively. It did not, however, answer these complex and important
questions. Dictating the introduction of new gTLDs without analyzing
the impact that these new gTLDs would have on trademark rights and
related dispute resolution procedures seemed like putting the cart
before the horse.
The Leahy/Ashcroft domain name study bill is intended to put the
horse back before the cart. We should understand the effects on
trademark rights of adding new gTLDs and related dispute resolution
procedures before we move to add significant numbers of new gTLDs.
Since its introduction in March, groups such as ATT, Bell Atlantic,
Time Warner, the International Trademark Association, the Information
Technology Industry Council, the Motion Picture Association of America,
the Domain Name Rights Coalition, and the American Intellectual
Property Law Association, amongst others, have endorsed this
legislation reflected in the Leahy-Ashcroft domain name study bill.
The Administration's White Paper, released on June 5, 1988, backed
off the Green Paper's earlier suggestion to add five new gTLDs.
Instead, the White Paper proposes that the new corporation would be the
most appropriate body to make decisions as to how many, if any, new
gTLDs should be added once it has global input, including from the
study called for in the Leahy-Ashcroft domain name bill. Specifically,
the White Paper calls upon the World Intellectual Property
Organization, inter alia, to ``evaluate the effects, based on studies
conducted by independent organizations, such as the National Research
Council of the National Academy of Sciences, of adding new gTLDs, and
related dispute resolution procedures on trademark and intellectual
property holders.''
I commend the Administration for the deliberate approach it has taken
to facilitate the withdrawal of the U.S. government from the governance
of the Internet and to privatize the management of Internet names and
addresses. We should have a Hippocratic Oath for the Internet--that
before we adopt any new regimen that affects the Internet, we should
make sure we are doing no harm to this dynamic medium.
In order for the WIPO study to be able to evaluate the effects, based
on studies conducted by independent organizations, such as the NRC, of
adding new gTLDs and related dispute resolution procedures on trademark
rights, the Leahy/Ashcroft domain name study legislation in H.R. 3332
instructs the NRC to release an interim report that can be considered
before the release of the March 1, 1999 WIPO study. I believe it
beneficial, however, for the final report of the NRC to still be
released after the WIPO study, so that the NRC can take into account
the results and recommendations offered by the WIPO study and offer its
comments on the WIPO study.
One might ask whether the NRC report is necessary, given the fact
that WIPO will also be doing a study. I believe that the answer is a
resounding ``yes''. Since the Internet is an outgrowth of U.S.
government investments carried out under agreements with U.S. agencies,
major components of the DNS are still performed by or subject to
agreements with U.S. agencies. Examples include assignments of
numerical addresses to Internet users, management of the system of
registering names for Internet users, operation of the root server
system, and protocol assignment. although U.S. government management of
the Internet's most basic functions will soon be phased out, it is
still not clear who will be running the new nonprofit corporation
which, according to the Administration's White Paper, will oversee the
domain name system. Moreover, the U.S. leads the world in the creation
and dissemination of intellectual property. Given the U.S. interests
that are at stake and the uncertainty in who will run the domain name
system and how it will affect U.S. stakeholders, I think it important
that a U.S. entity examine the issue of adding new gTLDs and related
dispute resolution procedures on trademark rights. As important as it
is for WIPO to benefit from an objective U.S. entity's perspective on
this matter, I also think that an objective U.S. entity should be
tasked with considering whatever recommendations are issued by WIPO.
I am therefore pleased that the Senate passed H.R. 3332 last night
with the Leahy/Ashcroft domain name study bill.
____________________