[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [registrars] Moving the gTLD debate forward...
I again smell bad faith in proposals of the sort that say: "well, WG-B could
not come up with consensus on tghe means for the protection of famous names
so we obviously cannot have new TLD's."
The Names Council ignored a clear consensus from WG-C. Your vote, as well as
those of others, is a matter of public record. The Names Council held that
the clear consensus in one group was of no force and effect in one instance
and then members within it - we suspect we know whose interests they
represent -have the nerve to say that, absent consensus in another, they
can't go and invent one. In short, a consensus to expand domain names in one
group is not a consensus when it calls for results the IP community or some
members of it does not wish, and an absence of consensus on the means to
protect IP in domain names, which that very community has been instrumental
in creating, and for which it is largely responsible, is an excuse to
prevent domain name expansion.
The incentives to come to agreement in a working group group are sharply
diminished when we know that a consensus agreement (a two-thirds majority)
in the working group C did not pass the Names Council. Vanished. Poof! Of no
force and effect!
The people who now complain of an absence of consensus are the very people
whose interests it is to have no consensus. This stinks.
The fact of the matter is that the Names Council has blown any credibility
it might have on this question.
The Board of ICANN is going to have to sort this one out.The absence of
consenus as to the means of protecting famous names will continue until the
Board of ICANN forces the issue by proposing their creation. Nothing less
than crisis negotiation will cause anything to happen. The same people who
created the absence of consensus should be estopped from claiming its
ICANN's credibility and future are at stake. After the debacle of the names
council's treatment of consensus in Working Group-C, registrars have no
rational basis for believeing that any mechanism they accepted would be
accepted up the chain of ICANN's supporting organizations.
Timothy Denton, BA, BCL
Telecom and Internet Law and Policy
37 Heney Street, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada, K1N 5V6
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
Behalf Of Paul M. Kane
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2000 6:04 AM
To: Registrars List
Subject: [registrars] Moving the gTLD debate forward...
There is a NC telephone conference tomorrow (apologies for the short
notice but the agenda is still in draft form).... and it looks as if
there does not appear to be consensus among the Working Group B
participants as to the type of mechanism that should be incorporated
into the roll out of new top level domains. There is also a call from
Working Group B that after 1 year of deliberation, it would like to
conclude its work.
I am fearful that such signals could stall, and further delay, the
introduction of new gTLDs. To avoid such stagnation, it may be helpful
to have wording approved by the NC that gives shape but not prescription
to the introduction of new gTLDs.... along the lines ..... new gTLDs
should be added with an objective to avoid consumer confusion and add
value in the creation of new names..... etc, etc.....
The alternative could be to request Working Group B continues it's
Please give your opinions..... time is short....
FN:Timothy M. Denton
ADR;WORK:;;37 Heney Street;Ottawa;Ontario;K1N 5V6;Canada
LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:37 Heney Street=0D=0AOttawa, Ontario K1N 5V6=0D=0ACanada
ADR;HOME:;;37 Heney Street;Ottawa;Ontario;K1N 5V6;Canada
LABEL;HOME;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:37 Heney Street=0D=0AOttawa, Ontario K1N 5V6=0D=0ACanada