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

[registrars] Conference call? on IPC proposals

To the registrars:
The letter below was sent earlier to Michael Palage.

Clearly the registrars have not consulted among themselves about the latest
proposals and the letter below email was sent in response to a letter from
Michael complaining about Tucows' position.

Tucows has offered its facilities for a conference call on domain name-trade
marks issues. We are willing to bear the cost.

Do you registrars wish to have a conference call on the appropriate reponse,
if any, to Trade Mark/Famous Names proposals issue?

It seems that on so vital a matter for registrars they should confer and
decide for themsleves what they think and where they should go.

Respond to the registrars list and Michael Palage, please, yea or nay, to
the idea of a conference call on TM-related issues.

What follows is for the record.

Tim Denton
-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy Denton [mailto:tmdenton@magma.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 4:28 PM
To: mpalage@infonetworks.com
Cc: Owner-Registrars
Subject: RE: [registrars] WG-B Update

Let me be as exact as we can, and try to soothe your bruised honour as much
as possible.

You have had presented to you, as Chairman of WG-B, at the last  minute, a
proposal that you did not write and over which you do not exercise any
control, so far as I know.

The "proposal" as such as found on the ICANN website which you duly
forwarded does not purport to be a consensus document, nor does it say that
there has been adequate consultation. In fact, it says that there has not
been time for consultation.

The web page reads in part:

"Since Cairo, the registrar constituency has potentially agreed upon the
following amendments to it original position statement. Specifically, the
Registrars are willing to back the creation of a Famous Marks list by a
qualified administrative panel such as WIPO, provided that such list is only
used in connection with a voluntary sunrise period and NOT in connection
with any filtering mechanism.

"The registrars, in an effort to seek consensus on behalf of the
Intellectual Property (IPC) and the Non-Commercial (NCC) Constituencies, are
also considering the following: 1) to address the concerns of the IPC with
regard to sub-string protection, which is not currently part of the WIPO
Chapter Four proposal, allowing the famous mark holders the ability to
register a limited number of sub-string variations during the sunrise
period; and 2) to address the concerns of the NCC, whether such a sunrise
period is appropriate in any new chartered non-commercial top-level

end of snip...

The expansion of the famous names list into an
all-trade-marks-everywhere-in- the-world list, plus 20 variations, is
exponentially larger - and I am using the word accurately - than what
registrars were inclined to accept in Cairo. I would guess it to be larger
by five or six orders of magnitude. It is not remotely the same as a famous
names list, which drew the interest of registrars as long as it involved no

Second, the word from on-high is that registrars and the general public will
be getting two or three new domains, not 6 or 12, on its way to infinity.
The bet, upon which rational men may differ, is whether useful compromise
with the IPC can be achieved.

It would  be in the interests of registrars collectively to determine their
views of the latest proposal. And this has not happened yet, in part because
facilities for a conference call were (apparently) not available.

Tucows has offered its facilities for a conference call this week at 2pm EST
or 4pm EST on Thursday afternoon. 4pm might allow the early risers in
Australia to have a say. As you are the Secretary of this registrars' group,
it is for you (I believe) to announce the call. Tucows is at your disposal
and awaits your decision as to whether this call should be on Thursday or
some other day, and at what time. As of now, it can be re-arranged from its
tentative 2pm EST time Thursday, May 20.

I consider to you to be acting in good faith. Your conception of the
registrars' best interests may differ from mine. It is, after all, a matter
on which reasonable people such as you and I may have different opinions.
The important question is: what does the registrars' constituency think of
the latest IPC proposals?


 Timothy Denton

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 3:42 PM
To: Registrars@Dnso.Org
Subject: [registrars] WG-B Update

I believe I have demonstrated since the inception of this constituency to be
a man of principle who always represents the best interests of this
constituency.  I regret that TUCOWS and their legal representative Mr.
Denton believe that I have some how sold you out. The sunrise proposal that
the IPC has adopted is almost identical to the proposal we adopted in a
telephone conference prior to Cairo.  In addition, Mr. Denton has failed to
mention that the majority of the traffic on the WG-B list in opposition to
the Sunrise proposal are the SAME EXACT people that OPPOSED the UDRP.

In addition to my posts to the list, I have been in contact with a number of
registrars to keep them apprised of the developing situation. The fact
remains that the original WIPO and IPC proposal involved a system where we
received ZERO ($0) compensation and were required to employ filtering
software ($$$ + potential liability).  The current proposal allows us to be
equitably compensated while at the same time working with the IPC to create
a better dialog.  For those that would like to read my report I have
enclosed it for your review.

I believe that the actions of the Names Council today are another important
step in the controlled responsible growth of the name space.

If anyone has any problems please do not hesitate to contact as usual.

Michael D. Palage