Re: [nc-transfer] FW: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

Hearing from the IPC on the specific points that John and Marc have raised
would be very useful from my perspective.

-rwr

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
To: "Transfer TF (E-mail)" <nc-transfer@dnso.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:john@johnberryhill.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 10:50 AM
> To: Marc Schneiders
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] Companion Dispute Proposal to WLS Service
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Maybe we can remedy the grave injustice done to trademark owners a bit
by
> > 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
> WLS-squatting.
>
> So, yes, a sunrise period for registered trademark holders would make
sense.
> 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
of
> 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 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
>