[council] DNSO Names Council Resolution on the Famous Trade-Marks

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

Council,

Here is the final wording of your resolution, an HTML version is:
    http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000519.NCftm-resolution.html.

I gathered an HTML file on the WG-B works since July 1999 until
May 2000. I would suggest its URL added at the end of document to
facilitate later readings, for exemple:
Annex: Summary of WG-B work, July 1999 - May 2000,
       http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000519.NCwgb-final.html

If there is no observation from your part, I will send it as formal
notification to the ICANN Board next Monday 22 May 18:00 CET (12:00
Washington DC).

Elisabeth

--
19 May 2000

DNSO Names Council Resolution on the Famous Trade-Marks and the 
operation of the Domain Name System.


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 
connection 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 
should 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 property 
during the startup phase of new top-level domains.
Therefore, the NC 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 other 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.

Annex: Summary of WG-B work, July 1999 - May 2000,
       http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000519.NCwgb-final.html