Re: [nc-transfer] FW: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service
Hearing from the IPC on the specific points that John and Marc have raised
would be very useful from my perspective.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <email@example.com>
To: "Transfer TF (E-mail)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:16 AM
Subject: [nc-transfer] FW: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service
> posted with consent of sender.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Berryhill [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 10:50 AM
> To: Marc Schneiders
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service
> > Maybe we can remedy the grave injustice done to trademark owners a bit
> > a WLS sunrise? I think VeriSign could easily demand $500 per domain for
> > sunrise WLSes.
> That's true. Upon institution of the WLS, there will clearly be a rush of
> applicants to get onto the WLS. This could overload the registry's
> capability to deal with management of the WLS, in addition to encouraging
> So, yes, a sunrise period for registered trademark holders would make
> Then, we'll need a WLS sunrise challenge procedure prior to population of
> the actual WLS queue, and then a WLSDRP for claims arising once operation
> the WLS goes forward.
> The WLS as currently proposed, contains no protection for IP interests at
> all, in contrast to every other new service which has been launched since
> the inception of ICANN. This is reason enough to send the WLS back for a
> re-work to explain how they intend to address the concerns of intellectual
> property owners.
> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html