[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[registrars] IMPORTANT - WG-B

Attached please find the Intellectual Property Community's (IPCs) sunrise
proposal. I believe this represents a significant step forward in the
consensus building process toward the controlled responsible growth of the
name space. I have spoken with Mike Kirk, the President of the IPC, and have
also included below some of his comments about the process to date. Let me
STRESS that this IPC proposal DOES NOT represent a final document. Both
constituencies realized that there are some details and issues to be
resolved in a drafting committee. However, it is important to realize that
we are now working on a common ground, i.e. a Sunrise Period.

Although there may be some registrars that will have concerns about this
proposal, I believe they can be worked out as the consensus process moves
forward. Please keep in the back of your mind some of the other alternatives
that have been considered in the past:

First, is the WIPO "famous marks" list which would have included a black
list that the registration authorities would have had to maintain. One
problem with the famous marks list is the limited amount of time available
to create it. Based upon what I heard, this task could have taken anywhere
from a couple of weeks to a couple of years. Considering that nothing in the
ICANN process can be done in a couple of weeks I believe that the later was
more likely.

Second, is the IPC proposal that called for the use of FILTERS in connection
with the registration process.

Please keep in mind that in both of these proposals the registrars were to
receive ZERO compensation.

I have already discussed the "discounted basis" that appears in the IPC
proposal. I explained that many registrars were eager to solicit the IPC's
business and that a "fixed" discounted basis would raise potential
anti-trust concerns, and would limit the flexibility with which a registrar
could cut and attractive deal. There also needs to be some additional
language dealing with the take down provision. Although I have heard no
protests so far from any registrar canceling a registration based on faulty
information, the authority and procedure must be clearly spelled out to
avoid any potential liability to the registrar.

As Chair of Working Group B I am required to submit a report to the Names
Council this weekend. I originally contemplated a teleconference but I had
only minimum feedback so I did not schedule one. Please review this e-mail
and the attached document and provide your comments to me ASAP. If you have
any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to pick up the phone and
give me a ring as it will be much quicker. +1 (561) 741-7880.

Mike Palage

Message from Michael Kirk, President of the IPC:

First, I am pleased to report that every IPC Member that responded to my
request for comments on the "Sunrise Plus Twenty". The comments ranged from
'prepared to accept the proposal and to go along with it', to 'willing to go
along with it', to 'a good compromise which protects famous marks as well as
other marks', to 'support for the proposal as a means of protecting
consumers and trademark owners'. Accordingly, in the view of the Task Force
which drafted the proposal as well as all those responding, the proposal
offers a way forward.
Having said that, several members decried the lack of time to more fully
reflect on the proposal, but agreed to it nonetheless in recognition of the
time crisis we face. In addition, there were several  suggestions for
tailoring the proposal as it reaches the implementation stage. These
suggestions include defining the type of variations that could be submitted
along the lines of the definition of "nearly identical marks" spelled out in
the original IPC proposal, clearly setting forth the details of the
"take-down" procedure so that both registrars and mark owners would know the
rules, and strengthening the UDRP process to address problems that might
arise during the sunrise period.
These are not all of the suggestions. In addition, the IPC has not, in view
of the shortness of time, had the opportunity to consider and debate the
suggestions. It would be my expectation that some of the suggestions may not
find majority support and that some alternative ways of accomplishing the
goals of other suggestions may be found. I mention these issues because, as
you know, while we are able  to say that the Registrars and the IPC are
prepared to proceed along the lines of the Sunrise Plus Twenty proposal,
there is a lot of hard work left to arrive at a final solution. However, our
discussions to date encourage me to believe that you and I can guide this
proposal to a successful conclusion.