RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots

["Cute, Brian" <bcute@networksolutions.com>]

This debate seems to be mostly about perception.  First, I support the
amendment as written.  I think it is appropriate to refrain from identifying
a specific "key stakeholder" by name out of concern that non-identified key
stakeholders might inappropriately perceive that their interests will
receive short shrift or are somehow subordinate to the identified key
stakeholder's interests.  As a matter of drafting, it also leaves the door
open to potential yet unidentified stakeholders (just a good conservative
approach to drafting).

What troubles me about Margie's remarks is the apparent suggestion that the
Registrar Constituency either: 1) wants to ignore the IP constituency's
legitimate interest in WHOIS as a key stakeholder in this process; or 2)
believes it can accomplish the stated goals without giving full
consideration to the IP constituency's concerns about WHOIS.  I, for one,
absolutely recognize the IP constituency as a key stakeholder and do not
entertain any thought that a resolution of these issues can be achieved
without with the IP constituency's full participation.     

If Margies remarks reflect a generally held view within the IP constituency,
I think it is incumbent on the rc to establish lines of communication and to
signal our interest in working together on this item.  That being said, I
would be surprised if either a registrar or an IP constituency member read
the draft amendment and DID NOT recognize IP interests as being included in
the "key stakeholder" category.  

Brian  


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@godaddy.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 1:50 PM
To: 'Margie Milam'; ross@tucows.com; 'Elana Broitman';
registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots


Margie,

For me the point is that I don't believe we should single out the IP
community in the way you propose.

Let's not turn this into some kind of debate over IP interests. Ross'
amendment is sound and does not in any way imply that the IP community,
or any other, has more or less rights to the data: quote "to ensure an
appropriate balance for all interests."

Our main concern here should be to get this on the Privacy Task Force's
plate. Then let the debate begin.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On
Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 10:31 AM
To: ross@tucows.com; Elana Broitman; registrars@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots

I am concerned about the opposition to my proposed amendment.  Does the
registrar constituency really believe that WHOIS plays no role in
assisting trademark holders determining who has been cybersquatting on
their legitimate trademark rights?   Without access to this information,
it is practically impossible for a trademark holder to determine how it
should protect its rights.   Obviously, ICANN believes that IP interests
represent significant policy concerns or there would be no IP
constituency or focus on sunrise periods associated with the launch of
new TLDS.      Privacy concerns are not the only concerns that need to
be addressed with respect to WHOIS.    I think that it is a mistake for
the registrar constituency to ignore the legitimate role of WHOIS for
intellectual property purposes.   

 

If there is not sufficient support for my amendment,  is there a way to
include my language as an alternative in the ballot?

 

Margie 

 

 

 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com] 
	Sent: Wed 4/9/2003 9:58 AM 
	To: Margie Milam; 'Elana Broitman'; registrars@dnso.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots
	
	

	> I would like to propose an additional revision to the
	> amendment which would include a reference to intellectual
	> property interests...<snip>
	
	> These changes would make it clear that the registrar
	> consituency is concerned about intellectual property
	> interests and would make it more likely that the other
	> consituencies would support the registrar position on this
issue.
	
	Tucows does not support this amendment, nor would we support the
motion
	if it included this amendment. Trademark, copyright and patent
	enforcement interests should not be afforded special preference
in GNSO
	policy beyond those rights that they have guaranteed under
existing law
	at the expense of other legitimate stakeholders. Inequitable
extra-legal
	considerations such as this belong in precisely the same
category as
	those found amongst the WIPO-II recommendations that Bruce
forwarded to
	the list yesterday.
	
	For the record, Tucows does not support using "privacy" as a
cloak for
	illegitimate activities. The recommendations of the privacy task
force
	should clearly deal with all such activities similarly and not,
as
	Margie's amendment implies, put the demands of the trademark,
copyright
	and patent enforcement interests ahead of the very real needs of
	individuals, registrars, law enforcement, governments and other
	stakeholders with equally important requirements.
	
	
	                       -rwr
	
	
	
	
	"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore
like an
	idiot."
	- Steven Wright
	
	Get Blog... http://www.byte.org/