[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga] RE: [wg-c] comment deadline for WG-C interim report
Jonathan, thank you for the clarification. I just walked into my office from
an external trip, so will just be making the deadline!
I offer the following comments:
I believe that there remain serious challenges and potential problems to the
introduction of new gTLDs that need to be resolved before any new gTLDs are
introduced. I also believe that there need to be established, and
implemented criteria, which are in place before new gTLDs are introduced.
This work has not been done. We have spent time in Working Group C on
whether. The step of how, and under what circumstances, and under what
criteria remains to be done.
I don't agree that we could utilize a "trial" without implementing the full
set of criteria, since you certainly can't backtrack.
the purpose of the go slow approach ,and testing of the criteria is to
provide a thorough experience with the introduction of any new gTLDs.
I remain unconvinced at this date that there has been a rigorous examination
of whether the name space expansion of characters/letters will provide any
benefit, and opportunity for more utilization. I have seen no discussion of
that on the working group, and of course, realize that is "new" and probably
just beginning to be implemented.
At this point, if new gTLDs are introduced, and the topic of famous marks is
not addressed, then companies with well known and famous marks (I realize
there is no "set" definition for this but ask that the readers understand
the general point I am trying to make here.)will have no choice but to
register in the new 'g's, thus effectively limiting the expansion... That is
not anyone's goal, so it is important to address the problem of how to
protect famous marks in any new gTLDs.
Once these criteria are developed and implemented, then a very small number
(preferably one) could be introduced. The registry function should remain a
"sole source" or contracted function, with competition in the registrar
function. It is worthwhile to examine the value of maintaining a non profit
status for the registry function; however, we understand that different
models exist now with the ccTLDs and with NSI as a registry. However, there
is no reason not to consider mandating "non profit" status for registries in
the future; with limitations contractually to the existing gTLD registry via
the ICANN accreditation process/procedures.
I further believe that the interests and issues of the ccTLDs need to be
understood and taken into account through dialogue with them before
introduction of new gTLDs are undertaken. This is in no way a comment on any
extension of authority of ICANN in this area, but a suggestion that
participation of the ccTLDs is useful in this dialogue. Some are
participating; we suggest that further dialogue is very critical.
Confidence in the newly established UDRP process must be built; and that is
"work in progress" with the filing of somewhere less than 10 cases.
I look forward to continuing to participate in working group c and urge that
there begin linkage between working group b and c at some point soon.
Best Regards, Marilyn Cade
From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 1:09 PM
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: [wg-c] comment deadline for WG-C interim report
The Names Council has clarified that comments on the Working Group C
interim report will be deemed timely so long as they are submitted by close
of business *today*, Monday, January 10, in the commenter's own time zone.