Clarify the registration process wrt. trademarks and copyrights

[msporny]

The current specification doesn't say that in order to block or remove a registration that a /registered/ trademark is required. The language around copyright is also problematic (granting a copyright holder the broad ability to block a registration). The text needs to be updated to remove much of the evaluation burden from the maintainers (by requiring that the trademark owner has the burden of proof). The purpose of this issue is to track this desired clarification.

[mwherman2000]

ready for pr
...
The purpose of this issue is to track this desired clarification.

This is a contradiction. @manu please remove the "ready for pr" label until there is more concensus on what the eventual solution is ..i.e. let's avoid dueling PRs. ...perhaps tag your idea as a proposal.

[mwherman2000]

We can't rely or restrict the uniqueness of a DID Method name based solely on trademarking due to some DID Method names not being trademarkable.
Read #597 for a meta proposal,

[mccown]

@msporny I posted a variation of my comments in another repo, so they might look familiar. I'm proposing that we adopt ICANN's trademark / copyright solution as they put a lot of effort into vetting it. I would be happy to create a straw horse PR if this angle sounds reasonable.

Trademarks, copyrights, and patents present an interesting dilemma for an international body, because they convey rights / limitations that are only valid within the country of issuance. For example, if a patent holder receives a US patent, but not an EU patent, then the invention is controlled in the US, but legally implementable in Europe without patent restrictions. So, how should an international body address internal national issues such as these?

The ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy includes some interesting requirements. Specifically:

Para 2: the submitter warrants that they are not knowingly infringing on someone else's rights

Para 3: "We will cancel, transfer or otherwise make changes to domain name registrations under the following circumstances:" "... our receipt of an order from a court or arbitral tribunal, in each case of competent jurisdiction, requiring such action"

What ICANN accomplishes with this is that they:

1. Put the initial due diligence on the submitter when processing applications.
2. In the event of any objections, they instruct the parties to resolve any disputes within their governing legal system.
3. Once an objection is legally resolved, then ICANN will keep or remove the domain as per the outcome of the legal process.

This process keeps ICANN out of the debate while operating in compliance with official legal rulings.

[msporny]

This process keeps ICANN out of the debate while operating in compliance with official legal rulings.

I think this is a great approach, yes, please, if you could write that up in a PR, that would be most helpful! Thank you for proposing a solution.

[mwherman2000]

@mccown Let's put a hold on the PR until we've had a chance to discuss #597 (as well as #595) in a WG call.

p.s. @mccown you've overlooked the rules, processes, and policies of the Provider"s Arbitration Panel that doesn't require engaging the legal system (although either party has that right before or after arbitration) and is discussed at length in the link you provided.

@mccown Do you think the W3C wants to host Arbitration Panels for the DID Method registry?

Let's start with something more lightweight like #597.

One of the alternatives in #597 is a domain registration which costs CAD$7.07 + tax for Year 1. Very affordable.

[wip-abramson]

Thanks @mccown, your proposal sounds great. I too would like to see a PR for this.

@mwherman2000 this issue and the PR @mccown is proposing is specifically to address how the DID extensions registry handles trademark and copyright claims when they arise over specific entrys in the registry.

It is not about attesting to the uniqueness of a specific DID method name, which is the issue #597 you are proposing we discuss first.

The working group does not have consensus on whether the DID method names should be required to be unique. See issues #569 and #304. WE hope to make progress on this issue soon.

Regardless of what the WG decides on the issue of DID method uniqueness, we need to clarify the registration process wrt. trademarks and copyright. The proposal from @mccown sounds like a great step in that direction.