ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] GAC proposal - further revision


Philip,
Thanking for your efforts to compile the suggested comments,
I suggest NC add "other exisitng regional or international Internet-
relevant Organizations to WIPO and DNSO as consultation body"
 
By doing this we can overcome Erica's concern about political
challenges.
 
> As I indicated in my earlier email on this subject, I agree that it would be
> almost impossible for governments to agree a set of rules by which to
> determine who has rights to a particular politico/geographical string.
> However, without some such rules it is difficult to imagine how the GAC
> recommendation could be implemented and we have nothing to lose - but
> everything to gain -  by referring the issue back to the GAC for
> clarification and reconsideration.
=============================================================
3. That, due to the inherent complexity, the best forum for governments
to seek solutions to the problems perceived by the GAC is the existing
forum of such intellectual property expertise, namely the inter-governmental
specialised UN agency, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)
combined with the existing forum for representing the internet community
in policy making, the DNSO.  

 YJ



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>