[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[registrars] Clarification on Working Group C Vote
Just a minor clarification with regard to the following comment submitted
last week by Bob Connelly. First, I think everyone on this list knows that I
take very serious the concerns of the Registrar community. My "no" vote was
in response to the immediate addition of 6-10 new gTLDs. Instead, I advocate
one new gTLD as part of a testbed phase to make sure that the safeguards
that we are now contemplating in Working Group B actually work. Moreover,
as part of my position paper in Working Group B, I argue against the use of
filters/exclusions and instead advocate a sunrise period for a right of
first refusal for famous mark holders. This is a much more equitable
solution for registration authorities, i.e. we get paid for domain name
registrations and do not have to use filters which cost us money and slow
down the registration process - makes sense to me :)
Traditionally there has been an underlying tension between registration
authorities and intellectual property owners. One of the things that I have
been working on is fostering a better working relationship between these two
P.S. Any nominations for a European Names Counsel representative to replace
Amadeu? Let me know.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf
Of Robert F. Connelly
Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 5:31 PM
To: Registrar Constituency
Subject: [registrars] Re: [wg-c] ballot stuffing
At 09:04 10-12-1999 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
Dear Registrars Constituency Members:
Almost all the votes on this issue were coming in "yes". Then, last night,
there was a string of "no" votes, starting with Michael Palage, Chair of
WG-B (and Secretariat of the Registrars Constituency) followed by someone
in the INTA (an early supporter for the IAHC).
It is clear that the word was spread by the Trademark community and they
jumped in and voted.
Dave Crocker has said it better than I so I attach his response.
Constituency members, get in there and vote yes!
>Looks like the trademark community needed about a day to get organized.
>For the first day of wg-c (re-)balloting on the matter of 6-10 new gTLDs
>, regular participants responded readily and overwhelmingly
>positively. Notable is that the support is from the full range of regular
>participants, no matter how strongly they might have disagreed about other
>matters, in the past.
>Yesterday and today we see a large number of new names, many voting
>no. Most appear to have affiliations that suggest an underlying concern
>about brand protection. Those adding comments to their votes raise very
>old issues, thereby suggesting entirely entrenched positions and no
>willingness to compromise. (If they are so concerned about the points
>they raise, why did they not participate in any of the many months of
>This highlights the difficulties in the process. An open process based on
>rough consensus requires a broad commitment towards making forward
>progress. A well-organized community can too readily side-track or block
"It doesn't do any good to run
if you don't start on time!"
"A stitch in time saves nine."