ICANN Stockholm Meeting Topic: Report of the Internationalized Domain Names Working Group—Responses to Survey B Posted: 29 May 2001

1. What is your view of the value of IDNs? Who will benefit from them? Is there any empirical proof of these benefits? Who will IDNs harm?

AIPLA	In the AIPLA's view, IDNs do have a value. Internet users for whom English is not their first language will benefit by being enabled to register and use domain names in their native languages.On the other hand, the introduction of IDNs will increase the likelihood of cybersquatting, in that foreign equivalents of Roman-character marks will be available for registration on the Internet.
WALID	The significant value of IDNs is to make the Internet - for social, educational, communications and commercial purposes -- more fully accessible to the 92% of the world's population that does not speak English. If one can measure potential benefits based on demand, the early experience of the VeriSign GRS multilingual testbed demonstrates that there is a large and immediate need for IDNs, with VeriSign having registered some 920,000 IDNs in the first five months of operation.
Verisign	Internet use is increasing dramatically throughout the world. Users who speak a language other than English comprise one of the fastest growing groups. Current estimates are that non-English speakers will make up two-thirds of all Internet users by 2003. Despite this growth, the Internet remains an English-centric resource with barriers of entry to non-English speakers. One such barrier is a lack of IDN capability within the Domain Name System (DNS). Currently, the DNS supports only domain names consisting of letters from the Roman alphabet and digits. In response to the demand for support for domain names in characters used by other languages, the VeriSign Global Registry Services has developed the IDN Domain Names Testbed. We believe that by making it easier for people around the world to use the Internet in their own languages, internationalized domain names (IDNs) constitute an important step towards making the Internet a truly global medium. VeriSign Global Registry Services (VeriSign GRS) is now able to offer the opportunity to register domain names in scripts that support languages used by approximately 80 percent of the world's population.
IPC	The IPC is in favour of a stable IDN system. Users of non-Roman script in the world are in the majority and in the future this is likely to also be the case on the internet. Companies operating in countries in which non-Roman script is used wish to be able to use for their domain names the same designation for their company and their brands as they use in those countries. The ability to do this in a stable harmonized system will benefit local and international companies and is likely to assist local use of the internet.
Neteka	Neteka believes that the introduction of multilingual domain names is imminent and brings huge value to the Internet for it to become a truly global medium. Domain names have become more than merely a string of characters for technical identification of an Internet resource, and have become a critical part of corporate branding and more important of all the identity of a person or a corporation on the Internet. This is confirmed by the need for the UDRP and its importance. The Internet community will benefit the most especially for the new comers on the Internet from regions where English is not a common language. The introduction of multilingual domain names reduces the barrier for entry for these people of the world. Corporations can also advertise their brand names in local languages, consistent to their existing literatures.
Register.com	The current DNS, which only supports the ASCII character set, creates a barrier to the use of the Internet for people who do not speak English or other Latin alphabet-based languages as their native language. The primary benefit to developing IDNs that are fully compatible with the current DNS would be to broaden the accessibility of the Internet, allowing more people to participate in and contribute to the Internet community. According to IDG News Service, 47% of Internet-connected devices in the Asia Pacific region use written scripts that require the use of non-English character sets. While it is difficult to determine precisely how much IDNs will increase the use of the Internet by these communities, such indications of demand for multilingual products lead us to believe that IDNs will greatly encourage and simplify Internet use. While the addition of new languages may cause difficulties for individuals who would like to access, for example, a Chinese language website but do not have the technical ability to type in Chinese, we at register.com feel that the benefits gained by this option to Chinese speakers considerably outweighs such disadvantages.
Peacenet	1-1. What is your view of the value of IDNs? IDN could make people convenient for using Internet, especially those whoare using non-Latin family languages. Moreover, it would make an cultural effect on them so that they could exactly express their own identities. 1-2. Who will benefit from them? IDN could be very beneficial to those users who are using non-Latin family languages and those entrepreneurs that are trying to make some businesses targeted on them. 1-3. Is there any empirical proof of these benefits? As IDN has not yet been deployed, its benefit is very uncertain. Then, in other services like BBS or on-line chatting, where user's mother tongue could be available in using id there are lots of people who prefer to choose their mother tongue style ids. This shows us well how such a use could be beneficial. 1-4. Who will IDNs harm? If we suppose a situation, in which IDN is to be popularly used and so the number of users who use only IDNs would sharply increase, the communication problem among people or companies that belong to different language zones could take place. In these cases, those who could not key in specified different language domain name labeled on the printed matter could fail to communicate or give up such attempts.
JPNIC	IDN is very valuable because the name space is broadened for use by non-English users. This is because Many Japanese words have multiple presentations, i.e., in Katakana, Hiragana, or Kanji. Different Japanese words usually have the same presentation in ASCII string, as they have the same pronunciation or they have the same corresponding English words. We have small set of examples by now as registration has just begun. Our experience till now shows more than half of the applied domain names in the sunrise period of a new domain space, which accommodates both ASCCI and Japanese names, were Japanese ones that are trademarks or trade names. This is thought to be a kind of evidence that Japanese users would like to use Japanese domain names. However, visually handicapped users may suffer from the difficulty in identifying the domain names they want to type-in, because pronouncing English alphabets is much easier than vocally identifying Japanese characters among over 2,000 different characters.
TWNIC	It has been noted that the number of non-English speakers is increasing very quickly in the whole Internet Community. However, DNS, which was basically designed for English speakers, is significantly unfriendly to the non-English speakers. Since the Internet is the medium for communication, it should never be used as a test on people's English proficiency. In China, over 80% of the population cannot read English (why should every body learn English?). Even though extensive Chinese contents have been developed on behalf of Chinese Internet users, DNS is the "last-mile" that prevent Chinese netizens from using the Internet comfortably and conveniently. Just as DNS, newly emerged IDNs might also cause problems in respect of intellectual property protection. However, non-English domain name disputes could be prevented and resolved through proper systems. Considering the business opportunity offered by IDNs in non-English speaking countries and regions, IDNs should not be regarded as harmful to IP owners.

2. Does the translation or transliteration of a trademark or other name constitute a violation? Does the answer to this question vary depending on the legal system? Do trademark treaties and other international agreements speak to this issue?

AIPLA	In the AIPLA's view, the translation or transliteration of a trademark or other name capable of trademark protection could constitute trademark infringement and/or dilution, depending upon the degree to which a national legal system recognizes infringements and dilutive acts by a mark, name or domain name that is a foreign equivalent.
WALID	With respect to questions 2 through 6 immediately above, WALID fully supports the work currently underway by ICANN and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to address the legal and policy questions, including intellectual property rights, surrounding the domain name industry as a whole. We believe that the principles thus far developed have facilitated a more responsible approach in the DNS. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy is an example of a mechanism that has increased user and industry confidence in the DNS. We would expect that with possible extensions, these principles should be applied to the IDNs space as well. WALID would look forward to participating in the on-going discussions of these issues.
Verisign	IDN should not be an excuse to permit infringements. Since the circumstances will vary widely, however, the question whether the translation or transliteration of a particular trademark or other name constitutes a violation is one that is currently best addressed through the ICANN-approved Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). For example, an internationally famous mark may be treated differently than a locally recognized mark. In its introduction of IDN technology, VeriSign GRS made clear its commitment to fostering continued use of the UDRP by registrars, end-users, and third parties.
IPC	Trademarks can of course be registered in non-Roman script. The unauthorized use of the trademark as a domain name may amount to trademark infringement in the same way as unauthorized use of a Roman-based character trademark. The transliteration or translation of a Roman-script trademark into a non-Roman-script language can amount to infringement. The question of trademark infringement varies according to the national law involved, but in very general terms is likely to depend on how the Roman-script trademark is known or referred to in the local language and whether the use of the translation or transliteration is likely to cause the public to believe that the trademark owner is associated with the word. There are no trademark treaties or other international agreements which focus on this issue.
Neteka	Neteka is not an expertise in intellectual property laws of the world, however we do believe that domain names should not be excluded from enforcement of the appropriate trademark laws.
Register.com	As with other disputes involving the rights to a domain name, register.com would defer questions of trademark violations or other illegal acts to the appropriate entities in the legal and Intellectual Property communities and handle them in a way comparable to our current use of the UDRP.
Peacenet	2-1. Does the translation or transliteration of a trademark or othername constitute a violation? Not necessarily. Whether the right of trademark is to be infringed or notdepends on the confusion of consumers. And confusion is decided depending on the similarity of trademark. Therefore, it depends on the similarity between the translation or transliteration of a trademark and trademark itself. 2-2. Does the answer to this question vary depending on the legal system? The similarity could not be rigidly defined by legal system but to some extent depends on the level of consumers' understanding of the applied foreign language or a certain of transaction environment. So far as the institution of trademark is based on the framework of maintaining the competitive business environment by blocking out the confusion of consumers, this may be the same in most countries. In some legal system that adopts dilution provisions, individual rights of trademark owners is weighted rather than the confusion of consumers. But the dilution provisions could not change judging of similarity. The similarity of the translation or the transliteration of trademark could be discerned by the generally applied principle of "sound, sight and meaning trilogy". This principle applies in Korea as well as the U.S., Japan and most European countries. 2-3. About UDRP UDRP should be reviewed and complemented because it had never considered IDN. To judge the infringement of trademark in IDN particularly in the case of translation or transliteration of trademark, those who have the bilingual or multilingual capacity should participate in panels.Therefore, in future, there should be some measures for making service providers in geographic locations depending on language family or some obligatory requirements to have those qualified panelists in service providers of domain name dispute.
JPNIC	There may be a violation in translation and transliteration depending on the legal system. For example, foreign trademarks are sometimes translated or transliterated into Japanese and the corresponding Japanese string may collide with other trademarks or trade names.
TWNIC	Since trademark right has the characteristic of territoriality, the answers to the above questions depend on the legal systems under which the trademark rights claim. Art. 6bis of Paris Convention, which is the most widely accepted international convention on industrial property, requests the member states to prohibit the use of "… a translation, liable to create confusion, of a mark considered by the competent authority of the country of registration or use to be well-known in that country as being already the mark of the person entitled to the benefits of this Convention and used for identical or similar goods". Art. 16 of WTO Trips Agreement extends the protection of well-known marks to "the goods or services which are not similar to those in respect of which a trademark is registered, provided that use of that trademark in relation to those goods or services would indicate a connection between those goods or services and the owner of the registered trademark and provided that the interests of the owner of the registered trademark are likely to be damaged by such use". Under CDNC members' (e.g., CNNIC, TWNIC) Trademark Law and Implementing Rules of Trademark Law, use of translation of any well-known trademark of another party, liable to create confusion, is a violation of trademark right.

3. Will the existence of IDNs increase the incidence of cybersquatting? In what manner?

AIPLA	The AIPLA believes that the existence of IDNs will increase the incidence of cybersquatting. Abusive domain name registration practices can occur with respect to the foreign equivalent of a well known mark normally appearing in Roman characters. See, e.g., Sankyo Co. Ltd. v. Zhu Jiajun, Case No. D2000-1791 (WIPO March 23, 2000). In Sankyo, the WIPO arbitration panel ordered the transfer of a two-character Japanese domain name which corresponded to Sankyo.com, based upon a finding that the domain name in question was registered and has been used in bad faith.
WALID	With respect to questions 2 through 6 immediately above, WALID fully supports the work currently underway by ICANN and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to address the legal and policy questions, including intellectual property rights, surrounding the domain name industry as a whole. We believe that the principles thus far developed have facilitated a more responsible approach in the DNS. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy is an example of a mechanism that has increased user and industry confidence in the DNS. We would expect that with possible extensions, these principles should be applied to the IDNs space as well. WALID would look forward to participating in the on-going discussions of these issues.
Verisign	While the overwhelming impact of IDNs on the Internet community will be favorable, the opportunity to register domain names in scripts other than the Latin alphabet, as well as the opportunity to register domain names in new top-level domains, can increase the incidence of cybersquatting. In other words, new and expanded opportunities to use the DNS can also lead to the possibility of increased illegitimate use. As with the current DNS, efforts must be undertaken to discourage and remedy such cybersquatting.
IPC	IDNs will increase the opportunity for cybersquatting. There are many hundreds of thousands of trademarks registered in non-Roman script languages and no doubt many more trademarks which are used without being registered. The ability to register a domain name in these languages will not only enable the trademark owners to register their own trademarks as domain names, but will also give the opportunity to cybersquatters to register the domain names. In addition, there will be the opportunity to register the non-Roman script equivalent (whether in the form of a transliteration or translation) of Roman-script trademarks. Cybersquatting of IDNs is already an issue and several cases have been brought under the UDRP.
Neteka	Cybersquatting is a necessary evil for the domain name system to continue to grow. The introduction of multilingual characters into the DNS system simply expands the possible namespace and therefore opens up more room for cybersquatting activities. In other words, simply by introducing more languages, there are more names for cybersquatters to squat.
Register.com	At this time, we have not seen strong indications that IDNs would be more prone to cybersquatting than other gTLD domain names. While adding new languages may pose a linguistic challenge to trademark owners who are monitoring violations against their trademarks, it would be unreasonable to base stricter protections for IDNs than for other domain names on this concern alone. Likewise, we would hope that such concerns would not significantly slow down the implementation process of IDNs.
Peacenet	Basically, the introduction of IDN may have nothing to do with the increase of cybersquatting. Under the present condition that permit only limited subset of Latin characters, many alterations by translation / transliteration / hyphenating of the original name have been used. However, if IDN is used, there is only one correct naming and only one domain name in its own language, therefore, the dispute could be rather vehemently increased.
JPNIC	Cybersquatting will increase. This is because some Kanji characters are very similar to each other and most trademarks and trade names are registered in Japanese characters.
TWNIC	Whenever new registration opportunity emerged, there could always be a rush of cybersquatting. Thus, either new gTLDs or IDNs will increase the incidence of cybersquatting. In the case of IDNs, cybersquatters would register the translations or transliterations of others' well-known marks, which may have been registered in English DNS.

4. What measures can be taken to minimize cybersquatting? Which of the following measures is most important - a "sunrise" period for pre-registration; a functioning WHOIS database; or a functioning UDRP system?

AIPLA	The AIPLA views of equal importance a "sunrise" period for pre-registration; a functioning and robust WHOIS database; and a functioning and well-run UDRP system to minimize instances of cybersquatting.
WALID	With respect to questions 2 through 6 immediately above, WALID fully supports the work currently underway by ICANN and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to address the legal and policy questions, including intellectual property rights, surrounding the domain name industry as a whole. We believe that the principles thus far developed have facilitated a more responsible approach in the DNS. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy is an example of a mechanism that has increased user and industry confidence in the DNS. We would expect that with possible extensions, these principles should be applied to the IDNs space as well. WALID would look forward to participating in the on-going discussions of these issues.
Verisign	Measures to minimize cybersquatting include fostering the use of the UDRP, as described above. It also includes urging registrars during the testbed to consider deleting IDN second level domain name registrations upon receipt of a formal, written objection to the registration by any legitimate authority, including without limitation a trademark owner.
IPC	All three are important protection mechanisms. A functioning and fully searchable WHOIS database is essential for dealing with cybersquatting, although language and technical issues need to be addressed. Also, it is vital that IDNs should be subject to the UDRP. Dealing with disputes involving IDNs involves additional complications and the ability of the existing dispute providers to administer such disputes should be carefully analyzed and any amendments to the existing process to better accommodate IDN disputes should be considered. The existing incompatible registration systems for IDNs have not included a sunrise for registered trademarks. We would favour a sunrise system for registered trademarks, but further consideration needs to be given to this issue and to the question of how existing registrations should be incorporated, if at all, into such a system.
Neteka	The provision of a functioning and extensible system for multilingual domain registration and resolution is most important. Most companies are aware of the legacy cybersquatting issues by now and if multilingual names do work, it is likely that they will register for those that are relevant to their business. A backward compatible and functioning multilingual DNS plus the enforcement of the UDRP are the keys.
Register.com	In our experience, the most effective tool against cybersquatting has been the UDRP. This has allowed trademark owners to handle trademark violations in a time and cost effective manner. We expect that the UDRP will be no less successful for IDNs than for traditional domain names. The UDRP is especially effective when coupled with a "sunrise" period that helps control cybersquatting by allowing preventative registration of domain names by trademark holders. In all cases, we feel that the introduction of new languages will not limit the effectiveness of these protective measures and that these measures should be similar to those used for domain names in Latin scripts.
Peacenet	There might be no effective means to block out cybersquatting. Sunrise is not desirable because it limits the other users' rights. UDRP (or any *DRP which is currently being used for Latin character domain names by ccTLDs) is the only one possible option at this stage even in IDN.
JPNIC	UDRP is essential. Additionally, sunrise period will facilitate the smooth start of new domain name space.
TWNIC	Both domain name registration agreements and DRP systems are effective measures to combat cybersquatting. Registration agreements provide a contractual-based control over cybersquatting. Contact details of registrants and open Whois database have been proved effective. Also, DRP offers a quick, cheap and almost fair channel for resolving domain name disputes. Among the three measures--a "sunrise" period for pre-registration; a functioning WHOIS database; or a functioning UDRP system, it is hard to say which one is the most important, but a "sunrise" period for pre-registration may be caused more problems than those it prevents. The most dangerous of all, registries or registrars could get involved in domain name disputes caused by sunrise measure.

5. What groups within and without ICANN should consider these policy issues? How should these groups proceed?

AIPLA	The AIPLA believes that ICANN is proceeding in the right direction, namely, the establishment of a working group directed to identifying various internationalization efforts and the issues they raise, to engage in a dialogue with technical experts and other participants in these efforts, and to receive appropriate recommendations regarding IDNs. This working group should be comprised of members of the various DNSO constituencies and the Names Council. The working group should strive to develop a consensus of position and recommendations to the ICANN board, and issue a definitive report with concrete recommendations, as soon as possible.
WALID	With respect to questions 2 through 6 immediately above, WALID fully supports the work currently underway by ICANN and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to address the legal and policy questions, including intellectual property rights, surrounding the domain name industry as a whole. We believe that the principles thus far developed have facilitated a more responsible approach in the DNS. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy is an example of a mechanism that has increased user and industry confidence in the DNS. We would expect that with possible extensions, these principles should be applied to the IDNs space as well. WALID would look forward to participating in the on-going discussions of these issues.
Verisign	VeriSign supports the work underway by ICANN's Board of Directors, as well as by the Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO), to consider any policy issues raised by IDNs. VeriSign also supports the policy development efforts of organizations such as the Multilingual Internet Names Consortium (MINC).
IPC	ICANN is proceeding in the right direction, namely, the establishment of a working group directed to identifying various internationalization efforts and the issues they raise, to engage in a dialogue with technical experts and other participants in these efforts, and to receive appropriate recommendations regarding IDNs. In particular, the views of experts in the field of intellectual property in the countries which will be most affected by the introduction of IDNs should be consulted. The working group should strive to develop a consensus of position and recommendations to the ICANN board, and issue a definitive report with concrete recommendations, as soon as possible.
Neteka	ICANN should provide general guidelines on policy issues with the help of the members from the ccTLDs around the world. Unless there is an organization that would replace ICANN's authority for names and numbers, we do not see a need for these discussions to be outside of ICANN. ICANN should take the responsibility to identify and provide guidelines to resolve policy issues, much like the introduction of the UDRP.
Register.com	Among the groups that should be involved in the discussion of these policy issues are the community members involved in privacy and IP concerns, GAC, and ICANN registries and registrars whose businesses are affected by these issues. The interested parties should work in cooperation with Internet standards setting bodies, such as the IETF, to ensure that technological standards are capable of addressing their policy concerns.
Peacenet	ICANN should hear all voices coming from both within and outside its own community. To establish a working group in DNSO could be one best option for collecting diverse comments within ICANN. Also ICANN should contact with other groups outside of ICANN to be consulted. Furthermore, more cooperative relations should be formed with other organizations like MINC, CDNC and JET that have worked for IDN.
JPNIC	We think ICANN should coordinate technical issues in parallel with technical standardization process through open and transparent discussion. This coordination, such as conducting registrars not to register ACSII strings with possible ACE headers, is essential to propel the IDN environment.
TWNIC	There should establish a standing WG on IDNs policy issue in ICANN. The leader should someone who is a non-English speaker with significant legal and technological background and high profile in the non-English speaking Internet community. The working group should keep close communications with the Internet community.

6. What other legal and policy issues are raised by IDN? How should ICANN address them, if at all?

AIPLA	The legal and policy issues raised by IDNs, as stated above, involve enhanced opportunities for cybersquatting by foreign equivalents of trademarks or service marks normally displayed in English and/or Roman characters. ICANN should address this issue by modifying the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP") to specifically recognize bad faith registration and use of domain names by foreign equivalents, that is, domain names in other languages which, translated or transliterated, would correspond to trademarks and/or service marks that normally appear in English and/or Roman characters.
WALID	With respect to questions 2 through 6 immediately above, WALID fully supports the work currently underway by ICANN and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to address the legal and policy questions, including intellectual property rights, surrounding the domain name industry as a whole. We believe that the principles thus far developed have facilitated a more responsible approach in the DNS. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy is an example of a mechanism that has increased user and industry confidence in the DNS. We would expect that with possible extensions, these principles should be applied to the IDNs space as well. WALID would look forward to participating in the on-going discussions of these issues.
Verisign	This survey, highlights key policy issues relevant to IDN. We therefore hope that many of the other entities (commercial and ccTLDs) offering the opportunity to register IDNs will also respond.
IPC	The IPC is limiting its comments to those affecting the rights of intellectual property owners.
Neteka	ICANN should definitely provide domain registration policy guidelines for multilingual names. Professionals such as WIPO should be consulted for legal issues such as trademark or intellectual property issues.
Register.com	One policy issue raised by IDNs is implementation and communication between registries and registrars.in the IDN space. Ample and equal notice from registries to registrars regarding testbeds and other new developments is important in creating an even playing field onto which new technologies will be introduced. ICANN can help achieve better communication by actively encouraging dialogue between registries and registrars. If such voluntary measures do not succeed, ICANN may need to consider using its authority to ensure that individual actors do not harm the overall interests of the Internet community. A second policy concern is the involvement of non-English speakers in the policy development and implementation processes. Representatives from communities using non-Roman languages should be thoroughly consulted as IDN decisions are made. This includes making documents, such as the current survey available in a variety of languages.
Peacenet	6-1. What other legal and policy issues are raised by IDN? If there are some language families that could bring about some confusion in naming expression even among different languages, some attentions should be paid in legal, technical or other policy aspects. Domain name is being used for web surfing as well as functioning as anidentifier for confirmation in most transactions including electronic commerce. Therefore, the security and the verifiability are also very important issues. Then, IDN could have many similarly looking characters even among different dozens of languages. Those could be used for fraud and consequently threaten the security. Therefore, some control over registration permission or dispute resolutionis required so that this collision could be minimized. To solve this technically, if similarly looking characters are inserted in name space, the one unified representative character could be replaced as anormalization process. If this kind of policies could be adopted, it could mitigate the problems. However, Japanese katakana ni, it looks the same one as Chinese character number two. So, it is not easy to determine whether those are to be same or not. Many cases like this will be found if studied. 6-2. How should ICANN address them, if at all? (= 5)
JPNIC	Among others, the following issues are thought to be the most important: 1) Internationalization of TLDs. Although we need more discussion, we tend to state TLDs should not be internationalized because language and countries(cc's) do not represent the same set of users. 2) Alternative roots. Internet community must not have alternative roots. And ICANN should try to prevent from alternative roots. 3) Languages for UDRP process. The language, which is implied by the "domain name," should be able to be used in the UDRP process even if the domain name is being registered in a jurisdiction with English.
TWNIC	UDRP might not be fully applicable to IDNs. Thus, UDRP itself may need modulation to some extent. Further, the operation system of UDRP may also need reform. Current UDRP service providers (WIPO, NFC, CPR and e-Resolution) are undoubtably competent of dealing with English domain name disputes, but their capability and resources for dealing with IDN disputes are fairly suspicious. Should ICANN consider delegating dispute service providers in different language communities? In my humble opinion as a besieged trademark holder the limited viability of the proposed extensions will prove, in the end, not to be worth the effort now being undertaken. The primary beneficiaries of these proposals are the speculators and cybersquatters.
Bird	In my humble opinion as a besieged trademark holder the limited viability of the proposed extensions will prove, in the end, not to be worth the effort now being undertaken. The primary beneficiaries of these proposals are the speculators and cybersquatters.