<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] FYI: WLS Vote of Transfers Task Force
sorry if I took a while in replying to this thread but Im just getting
caught up here.
ummmmmm...Todd, I have a problem with the first paragraph. I see nowhere
how you get to the conclusion that WLS requires this assumption. In
fact, I have debated the intellectual property concern with trademark
attorneys many times, icluding representatives of the Intellectual
Property constituency on the task force charges with making a
recommendation to names council on this issue. My position has been that
WLS is IP-neutral. And I dont think you can find anyone who knows their
way around IP arguing with me.
So perhaps you can enlighten me....how does the fact of having a WLS
service turn a domain into a trademark at all, let alone...a separate
class?
speaking of class, are you referring to the various classes of marques
such as they have in the International Trademark Calssification Guide
such as class 26 for fancy goods? or a differnt use of the word 'class'?
todd glassey wrote:
>
> 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
--
Dan Steinberg
SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec fax: (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|