[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [registrars] Conference call - good idea
Yes, for a conference call...thanks Tim!
Jeff
NameSecure.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@dnso.org
[mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]
On Behalf
Of Timothy Denton
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 10:39
AM
To: registrars@dnso.org
Subject: [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
Michael:
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
domains."
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
filters.
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?
Sincerely,
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
--
Jeff Field,
Founder
jfield@namesecure.com
1042 Country Club Dr., Ste.
1-A
phone: 925-377-1212, ext. 100
Moraga, CA
94566-0127
fax: 925-377-1414
NameSecure.com - Providing Internet Identity Essentials