RE: [ga] FYI: GAC Commentary on the Names Council Resolution

["Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@noie.gov.au>]

Dear Mr Williams

I apologise for the difficulties you have been experiencing in accessing the
GAC website.  The Secretariat has been re-developing the site in recent
times and this may have attributed to your inability to access the list of
Accredited Representatives.  I have been able to access the site through
your second link this morning which does provide details of Accredited
Representatives. 

Should you continue to experience difficulties, could you please let me know
and we will endeavour to fix the problem.

Donna Austin
GAC Secretariat 



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Monday, 29 October 2001 9:05
To: Alexander Svensson
Cc: ga@dnso.org; Donna Austin; Karen Rose; Karl Auerbach; Don Evans;
Phil Gramm; Kay Bailey Hutchison
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: GAC Commentary on the Names Council Resolution


Alex and all assembly members,

  The GAC web page is http://www.noie.gov.au
  The contacts link for the GAC is:
http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/international/DNS/gac/contacts.htm
Donna AUstin is the GAC Secretariat, which BTW is the only contact
with and E-Mail address listed.  One wonders how stakeholders
are to contact their GAC representative?
The "Accredited Representatives" Contact link is:
http://www.noie.gov.au/projects/international/DNS/gac/gac
representatives.htm
Which is currently broken Message: "The parameter is incorrect." when
trying to link the this page.

  Given all this, one must also wonder if the GAC cannot maintain their
Web pages and does not provide a E-Mail address contact for their
"Accredited Representatives", than how the hell can they really be
given the respect for their opinions by the stakeholders that they
represent?

  I also don't recall my GAC representative soliciting my opinion on any
issue that effects me, nor can I presently provide any comments
to MY GAC representative presently via E-Mail or any other
form.  Could this be by design?  I hope not.

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> GAC Commentary on the Names Council Resolution
> 26 October 2001
>
http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/names-council-resolution-commentary-26oc
t01.htm
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> 1. Background and Introduction
>
> In August 2001, GAC became aware of anomalies in registration
> practices during the .info sunrise period with respect to country
> names. Accordingly, GAC in Montevideo considered the question and
> published conclusions with respect to country names in its
> Communiqué.[1] The ICANN Board supported the GAC recommendations
> in principle and decided that such names should be registered by
> the Registry to ICANN for the time being unless registered by a
> valid trademark holder.[2] The Board has also initiated an Action
> Plan to address other aspects of the issue and to report before
> the March 2002 Accra meeting.[3]
>
> These recent developments have given rise to some discussion in
> the ICANN Community, notably on the DNSO lists. The Names Council,
> on 11 October 2001 adopted a Resolution about this.[4]
>
> GAC has comments and reservations about the Names Council
> resolution. In the interests of a transparent and informed
> discussion, and hopefully with a view to a resolution of any
> outstanding difficulties, GAC submits this commentary for the
> consideration of ICANN and all other parties concerned.
>
> GAC would also recall that this is not the first time that it has
> addressed this issue. In its November 2000 Marina del Rey opinion
> on new gTLDs,[5] GAC stated that:
>
>   3.5 The GAC discussed geographical, geopolitical, and ethnic
>   concepts in relation to new gTLDs. These discussions will
>   continue in subsequent meetings of the GAC.
>
>   3.6 The GAC notes that WIPO Member States have asked WIPO to
>   consider and make recommendations   on issues related to bad
>   faith, abusive, misleading or unfair use of personal names,
>   International Non-proprietary Names (INNs) for Pharmaceutical
>   Substances, names of international intergovernmental
>   organizations, geographical indications, indications of
>   source or geographical terms, and trade names.
>
>   3.6.1 WIPO's report may lead to the development of policies
>   in these areas. In these circumstances, the registration
>   policies for new gTLDs, as approved by ICANN, could make
>   reference to the WIPO 2nd Domain Names Process and provide
>   for ready adoption of any ICANN policies resulting from this
>   process. Accordingly, should registration policies initially
>   implemented by new gTLDs allow for registrations of names in
>   any of these categories, registrants should be made aware
>   that the adoption of such policies may have potential impact
>   on registrations.
>
> Had this advice been taken at the time, any registrant in the new
> TLDs registering a name in any of the categories of names
> addressed by the WIPO report would have done so in the full
> knowledge that a policy development process arising from the WIPO
> report could put at risk those registrations. GAC's attention was
> drawn to the registration of large numbers of country names in
> .info during the sunrise period and upon further investigation
> it was evident that a large number of these registrations had not
> met the necessary criteria. In the circumstances, and in light of
> its previous statements, the GAC advised ICANN to take steps to
> reserve country names in .info and assign them to the
> corresponding governments and public authorities, at their request.
>
> Such action provides an option, within a small part of the DNS,
> for many countries that have expressed serious concerns about
> this issue. The GAC's recommendation in Montevideo is a focused
> response to an issue that is of great concern to many countries.
>
> GAC is also aware that many governments that may have a concern
> about the registration of their country names in .info are not
> yet aware of these developments. Furthermore, registration of a
> domain name tends to create expectations of continuing use by
> Registrants. In the circumstances, the GAC's advice sought to
> avoid conflict between such expectations and the expressed
> interest of a number of countries to ensure that country names
> are used in the interests of the general public in the country
> concerned.
>
> 2. The WIPO-2 Report
>
> The recent WIPO resolution[6] mandates special sessions of the
> Standing Committee on Trademarks (SCT)[7] to address each aspect
> of the WIPO-2 Report.[8] The SCT is asked to submit a report by
> September 2002.
>
> 3. The GAC Recommendation
>
> Following thorough discussion, the GAC Communiqué addresses
> primarily country names in .info according to ISO 3166-1.[9] In
> developing its response, the GAC consulted with both ICANN and
> Afilias with a view to ensuring a feasible and workable solution.
>
> >From the point of view of a number of governments and public
> authorities, this is a minimum acceptable position and leaves
> open a range of related issues to be addressed in the future.
>
> 4. Names Council Resolution
>
> It follows that resolution that has been adopted by the Names
> Council raises several specific problems from GAC's point of
> view. In general, the debate within the DNSO appears not to
> recognise the major effort made by GAC members to circumscribe
> and limit their requirement for reservation of the names of
> countries in .info according to ISO 3166-1, as well as actively
> seeking cooperation with Afilias regarding the approach..
>
> The GAC, provides the following comments in relation to aspects
> of the Names Council's resolution:
>
>     1. That while it understands the concerns of the GAC, caution
>     should be exercised to avoid a short-term reaction to a problem
>     that is not inherent to dot info.
>
> The GAC acknowledges that the problem is not inherent to dot
> info, however, the GAC made the recommendation to the ICANN
> Board because of the 'special nature of .info' and in response
> to significant concerns raised with the GAC prior to the
> Montevideo meeting. It has not suggested that the reservation
> be applied to any other gTLD.
>
>     2. That there is not a full understanding of the implications
>     for suppliers and users of retrospective action of the kind
>     GAC seeks.
>
> The GAC discussed their proposal with Afilias staff during
> the Montevideo meeting. The reservation as recommended by the
> GAC, does not hinder Afilias in the administration of their
> registration process of names in .info and as such, there are
> no retrospective implications for suppliers and users.
>
> It should also be remembered that the GAC first flagged concerns
> about the use of geographical and geopolitical names as an issue
> in November 2000. In particular, the GAC specifically recommended
> that the issues under consideration in the WIPO 2 report and the
> possible impact of ongoing policy discussions be raised with
> registrants.
>
>     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, and other relevant stakeholders.
>
> WIPO is a member of the GAC and as such, the GAC is aware of the
> work being undertaken by WIPO in this area. WIPO has referred the
> question back to its member governments who have decided on the
> immediate follow-up.
>
> It must also be acknowledged that as the domain name system operates
> in a dynamic environment, the GAC is aware that it may be called on
> to provide advice in specific areas that may precede the work of
> inter-governmental organisations such as WIPO. In this vein, ICANN
> is to be commended for taking action, as it has done.
>
> In response to the request to the ICANN Board:
>
>     (a) To recommend to the GAC that it reconsiders its recommendation
>     in this matter in the light of the work already in progress at
>     WIPO following the recent WIPO report 'The Recognition of Rights
>     and the use of Names in the Internet Domain Name System; and
>
>     (b) To encourage the GAC and all interested parts of the ICANN
>     structure to contribute to WIPO's work in this respect.
>
> The GAC supports the notion that all interested parts of the ICANN
> structure contribute to WIPO's work not only in respect to geographic
> identifiers , but in relation to the work of WIPO more generally.
> Many members of the GAC are also Member States of WIPO and as such
> are well-informed on the work being undertaken.
>
>     (c) to invite the Names Council to participate in the discussion
>     group on ISO 3166-1 names.
>
> The GAC welcomes the opportunity to discuss the issue with the DNSO on
> the understanding that the interested parties, including governments
> can participate effectively.
>
> In conclusion, the GAC would welcome further discussion with the DNSO
> and Names Council members in order to clarify the arguments on both
> parts. However, the GAC disagrees with some of the arguments and
> conclusions in the Names Council Resolution of 11 October 2001. GAC
> members will be glad to participate in the Action Plan recently
> announced by ICANN in this respect.
>
> Dr Paul Twomey
> Chair
>
> 26 October 2001
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> Notes:
>
> [1] http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/communique-09sep01.htm
>
> [2] http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-10sep01.htm
>
> [3] http://www.icann.org/montevideo/action-plan-country-names-09oct01.htm
>
> [4] http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc06/msg00202.html
>
> [5] http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/new-tld-opinion-16nov00.htm
>
> [6] Assembly of the Member States of the WIPO, September 24 to
>     October 3 2001. Decision on the Report of the Second WIPO Internet
>     Domain Name process.
>
> [7] Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs
>     and Geographical Indications (SCT).
>
> [8] Names of inter-governmental organisations (IGO), Geographical
>     Names, International Non-Proprietary Names of pharmaceuticals
>     (INNs) and Personal names.
>
> [9] As interpreted by ICANN and in official languages and in English.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



_________________________________________________________________________ 

IMPORTANT: This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain private or
confidential information. If you think you may not be the intended
recipient, or if you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the
sender immediately and delete all copies of this e-mail. If you are not the
intended recipient, you must not reproduce any part of this e-mail or
disclose its contents to any other party.
 
_________________________________________________________________________ 

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html