RE: [registrars] Proposed Ballots

[Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Its a slippery slope, shouldn't we also include Law-Enforcement, if we
include IPR? I suggest we leave it as ross put it insted of including
every special interest.

-rick


On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Cute, Brian wrote:

> 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/
>
>
>