Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

The problem with the WLS is simple- it will cause a liability in operations
against ICANN in that it assumes that the marks or Internet Domain Names
that have to date been treated as trade marks are not that, and that they
are the ONE and ONLY MARQUE used by that IP Holder.

This makes the Internet Domain Name a separate class of Marque and this
would take an act of law to put in place.

They (the WLS Registrars) also are looking to put in place that because
these "marques" are only valid during the period of being registered, that
the instant the registration expires that the owners has officially
abandoned the marque and that is ludicrous at best. This erroneous
assumption of US Trademark Law would then place the marque further into the
control of the registrar and not the real owner of the marque.

The rules about trademark Intellectual Property are simple and have been in
effect for much longer than there was an Internet, so without modifying
them, the WLS itself is probably illegal in my estimation and will likely be
challenged in court.

The net effect is that anyone suffering damages due to what I consider a
"commercially self-centered" policy, should just sue the registrar and ICANN
jointly for the damages. And I assure you that the veil of the corporation
is most likely easily pierced in such a situation. And pierced  such that
the ICANN Board Members can be held financially accountable for damages in
WLS based damage claims... personally.

My feeling is that it will be very interesting to see how this works out,
since I am sure ICANN's director's insurance would not cover a malicious act
of creating a system that intentionally allows to usurping of existing
marques.  And what also about certain registrar's refusals to delete expired
domains or to allow transfers to happen to domains... Seems like we have the
same problem. The registers controlling access to IP's they do not own.

Todd Glassey


----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Svensson" <alexander@svensson.de>
To: "DNSO General Assembly" <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 3:17 AM
Subject: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force


>
>
> From: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
> >In preparation for the NC discussion and vote on the final report of the
Transfers task force on the Wait List Service referral, please see below the
result of the internal vote of the task force on their report. (Edits for
clarity are mine.)
> >Philip.
> >
> >----------------------------------
> >I. Recommendation  1:  To deny the WLS:
> >
> >A. RGP The ICANN board move with all haste to implement and actively
enforce the
> >proposed Redemptions Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice
> >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, gTLD, Registrars, BC
> >Accepted by all
> >
> >B. WLS and agreement. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to amend
its agreement to
> >enable it to introduce its proposed WLS.
> >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> >No: IP, gTLD
> >6 YES          2 NO
> >
> >C. WLS trial. The ICANN Board reject Verisign's request to trial the WLS
for 12 months.
> >Yes: ccTLd, ISPCP, GA, Registrars, BC
> >No: gTLD
> >Abstain: NonC, IP
> >5 YES            1 NO      2 ABSTENTIONS
> >
> >I. Summary Recommendation to deny the WLS:
> >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> >No: IP, gTLD
> >6 YES              2 NO
> >
> >II. Contingency recommendations in event the Board rejects the TF prime
recommendation.
> >Should the ICANN board not accept the policy recommendations noted above
> >and grant Verisign's request for a change to its agreement and a 12 month
> >trial of its WLS, we would alternatively recommend that WLS be approved
with
> >conditions:
> >
> >A. RGP. The introduction of WLS is dependent on the implementation and
proven
> >(for not less than six months) practice envisaged in the proposed
> >Redemption Grace Period for Deleted Names policy and practice and the
> >establishment of a standard deletion practise.
> >Yes:ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, IP, Registrars, BC
> >No:gTLD
> >7 YES 1 NO
> >
> >B. Deletions. Several Constituencies remain concerned that a standard
deletion practise
> >be established and implemented. Some TF members believe that this could
be
> >considered separately from WLS.
> >
> >(CHOICE OF ONE OF THREE):
> >
> >1) Standard Deletion practise should be established at same time as WLS
and
> >implemented before WLS.
> >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA,  Registrars, BC
> >5 YES
> >2) Standard deletion practise should be established, but need not be in
> >place before
> >WLS is implemented.
> >Yes: IP, NonC
> >2 YES
> >
> >3) Standard deletion practise should be considered separately.
> >Yes: gTLD
> >1 YES
> >C. Information/notice. (CHOICE OF ONE OF TWO).
> >
> >C. 1. The WLS include a requirement that notice be provided by the
Registry
> >(through the registrar) to the existing registrant of a domain name when
a
> >WLS option is taken out against that registrant's domain name.
> >Yes: GA, NonC,
> >2 YES
> >
> >C. 2. Information should be available to the incumbent domain
> >name holder when a WLS has been put on the name.
> >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, IP, BC, .Registrars
> >Abstain: gTLD,
> >5 YES         1 Abstain
> >
> >D. Transparency. The WLS include a requirement for full transparency as
to who has placed
> >a WLS option on a domain name and the registrar that actions the option.
> >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, NonC, Registrars, BC
> >No: IP
> >Abstain: gTLD
> >6 YES         1 NO       1 Abstain
> >
> >E. Cost.  WLS should be cost based, consistent with previous
considerations for
> >approval of Registry services by the ICANN Board.
> >Yes: ccTLD, ISPCP, GA, , Registrars, BC
> >Abstain: IP, gTLD, NonC
> >5 YES        3 Abstain
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> 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
>

--
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