[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[council] repost of NC Resolution for WG-B
I don't see this posting, so I am resending.... kathy
I appreciate all the work that the NC did on this resolution today. I would
also like to express my sincere gratitude to Theresa for twice now
undertaking the very difficult task of drafting a resolution and then
allowing it to be edited. Without these first drafts, we would not have been
able to continue.
Here is the text of the resolution, as read by myself and Erica. I will
leave further formatting to Elisabeth. In addition, I am sending to
Elisabeth my full edit notes with additions, deletions and original text.
Resolution of the Names Council
May 19, 2000
> The Names Council recognizes the enormous work undertaken by Working Group
> B. The Names Council acknowledges that according to its final report,
> Working Group B has reached consensus on three points, namely:
> (1) Some type of mechanism, yet to be determined, is necessary in
> with famous trademarks and the operation of the Domain Name System.
> (2) There does not appear to be the need for the creation of a universally
> famous marks list at this point in time.
> (3) The protection afforded to trademark owners should depend upon the type
> of top-level domains that are added to the root.
> With regards to points (1) and (3), the NC notes that the Working Group
> members could not reach consensus on the type of mechanism that should be
> incorporated into the roll-out of new gTLDs (point (1)), which is
> understandable given their consensus in point (3) that the protection
> likely vary depending on the type of top-level domain.
> The NC concludes that there
> is community consensus and recommends that
> there should be varying degrees of protection for intellectual
> during the startup phase of new top-level domains.
>Therefore, the NC [Elizabeth, perhaps change the word therefore to "also" to
be placed here??]
> recommends that the ICANN Board make clear that nothing in the
> general consensus items, or areas of non-consensus, should be construed as
> creating immunity from the UDRP or other legal proceeding should a domain
> name registrant in a chartered top-level domain violate the charter or
> legal enforceable rights.
> The NC notes that the principles of differentiated gTLDs (from WG-C) may
> provide additional assistance in avoiding confusion.
> With regards to item (2) on universally famous marks, the NC
> concludes that there is no consensus in the community at the present time
> that such a list should be adopted by ICANN.
> The NC also recommends to the ICANN board that it take note of the Working
> Group B report, including the submissions by participating parties.
> The NC would like to express its gratitude to the hard work of Michael D.
> Palage, Kathryn Kleiman, and Philip Sheppard in steering the Working Group
> and seeking to guide them towards consensus on the difficult set of issues
> they were assigned.