From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #88 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Sunday, April 16 2000 Volume 01 : Number 088 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 15:12:46 +0900 From: "Robert F. Connelly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT At 11:29 11-04-2000 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: Dear Jonathan: >PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE > > The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, > from open >TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope. I vote yes. >PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO > > Criteria for assessing a gTLD application, subject to current > technical >constraints and evolving technical opportunities, should be based on all of >the following principles : I vote yes: >PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE > > WG-C recommends that the Names Council charter a working group to > develop >policy regarding internationalized domain names using non-ASCII characters. I vote yes. Regards, BobC ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 12:20:50 +0200 From: "Petter Rindforth" Subject: [wg-c] Consensus Calls This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BFA6D5.0A1BC460 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE Yes... (However, definately not so many as up to 10 and there must be = sufficient safeguards for TM owners!!!) PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO Yes PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE Abstain (The idea is right, but as I understand it this work is already ongoing = in other groups) Petter Rindforth Enderborg Trademarks AB - ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BFA6D5.0A1BC460 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER = ONE
 
Yes...
 
(However, definately not so many as = up to 10 and=20 there must be sufficient safeguards for TM owners!!!)
 
PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER = TWO
 
Yes
 
PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER = THREE
 
Abstain
 
(The idea is right, but as I = understand it this=20 work is already ongoing in other groups)
 
Petter Rindforth
Enderborg Trademarks=20 AB
- ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01BFA6D5.0A1BC460-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 11:39:57 -0400 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] Administrivia (041500) Oki all, Comments after the list of votes cast. I trust everyone is ready for their broker's margin call on Monday, weren't planning on paying personal income tax (US) with dot-com paper, and intend to cast a ballot before engaging in self-defenestration. 139 subscribers of list 'wg-c' (revised as of 11 Apr 2000) 15 subscribers of list 'wg-c-digest' (revised as of 11 Apr 2000) Note that Jeff Trexler is counted 3 times, as is Mark Measday, so the number of actual subscribers to both wg-c lists is 150, not 154. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ name | paper | 8 Dec | CAIRO | March | April | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ajay Joshi | | | NEW | | N.Y.N | Alex Kamantauskas | | | NEW | YES | Y.N.N | Annie Renard | C | no | | | Y.Y.N | Bret Fausett | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.a | Christopher Ambler | B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.N | Craig Simon | F | yes | | YES | Y.N.N | Daiva Tamulioniene | | yes | | | N.Y.N | Dave Crocker | A,D | yes | | YES | N.N.Y | David Schutt | | | NEW | | Y.N.N | Dongman Lee | | yes | | | Y.Y.y | Eric Brunner | A,D,E | yes | | YES | Y.N.N | Greg Schuckman | | | NEW | YES | Y.y.N | Harold Feld | | yes | | YES | Y.Y.a | Harald Tveit Alvestrand | | | NEW | YES | Y.y.N | Ian Penman | | yes | | YES | Y.Y.Y | James Love | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.Y | James Seng | | | NEW | | Y.Y.a | Jay Parker | | yes | | YES | Y.Y.a | Jean-Michel Becar | A | yes | | YES | Y.Y.Y | Jeff Shrewsbury | | yes | | YES | Y.Y.Y | Jerry Yap | | | NEW | | Y.Y.Y | Joe Kelsey | | | NEW | YES | N.N.N | John Charles Broomfield | | yes | | YES | N.Y.Y | Jonathan Winer | | | NEW | NO | Y.Y.Y | Josh Elliot | | | NEW | YES | Y.N.N | Joop Teernstra | B | yes | | YES | N.N.N | | | | NEW | YES | N.N.N | Karl Auerbach | | yes | | YES | y.N.N | Kathryn Vestal | B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.N | Keith Gymer | C | no | | NO | N.Y.N | Ken Stubbs | | yes | | | Y.Y.Y | Kendall Dawson | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.Y | Kevin J. Connolly | | no | | YES | Y.N.N | Kilnam Chon | | yes | | | Y.Y.N | Kit Winter | | | NEW | | Y.Y.N | Marilyn Cade | C | no | | NO | N.N.N | Mark Langston | B | yes | | YES | y.N.N | Milton Mueller | B | yes | | | Y.Y.N | Patrick Greenwell | | | NEW | | Y.N.N | Petter Rindforth | C | no | | NO | Y.Y.a | Philip Sheppard | | no | | NO | N.Y.N | Richard Campbell | | | NEW | | Y.Y.N | Richard Kroon | | | NEW | | Y.Y.N | Robert F. Connelly | A | yes | | YES | Y.Y.Y | Rod Dixon | A,B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.Y | Ross Wm. Rader | | yes | | YES | N.N.N | Simon Higgs | | | NEW | | Y.a.a | Timothy M. Denton | B | yes | | | Y.N.Y | Timothy Vienneau | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.N | Tony Linares | | | NEW | YES | Y.Y.Y | William X. Walsh | B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.N | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total votes cast: 51 Comments: I'll let people add up the columns for themselves, as my dyslexia isn't constrained to just left-to-right (esrever eht ro), but is just as bad top-to-bottom (why I'm neither an accountant, nor literate in Kanji or related writing systems). I think how the Position Paper blocks line up (or don't) is interesting. The WG-C Trademark Lobby votes: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ name | paper | 8 Dec | CAIRO | March | April | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Annie Renard | C | no | | | Y.Y.N | Anthony Lupo | C | no | | NO | | Caroline Chicoine | C | no | | NO | | Keith Gymer | C | no | | NO | N.Y.N | Marilyn Cade | C | no | | NO | N.N.N | Martin Schwimmer | C | no | | | | Petter Rindforth | C | no | | NO | Y.Y.a | The WG-C Free Market Lobby votes: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ name | paper | 8 Dec | CAIRO | March | April | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A.M. Rutkowski | B | | | | EXIT | Christopher Ambler | B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.N | Joop Teernstra | B | yes | | YES | N.N.N | Kathryn Vestal | B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.N | Mark Langston | B | yes | | YES | y.N.N | Mikki Barry | B | yes | | YES | | Milton Mueller | B | yes | | | Y.Y.N | Paul Garrin | B | yes | | YES | | Timothy M. Denton | B | yes | | | Y.N.Y | William X. Walsh | B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.N | Roeland Meyer | G | yes | | YES | | The WG-C International Ad Hoc co-Conspiraators, Indigenous co-Conspirators, and Wooly Minded Compromising Position co-Consipirators Lobby votes (labels provided at no cost through the public minded generosity of the WG-C Free Market Lobby donors): - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ name | paper | 8 Dec | CAIRO | March | April | - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Amar Andersson | A,D | | | | | Dave Crocker | A,D | yes | | YES | N.N.Y | David Maher | A,D | yes | | YES | | Eric Brunner | A,D,E | yes | | YES | Y.N.N | Jean-Michel Becar | A | yes | | YES | Y.Y.Y | Jonathan Weinberg | A | yes | | | | Joseph Friedman | A,D | yes | | YES | | Mark Measday | A | yes | | YES | | Paul Stahura | A | yes | | | | Robert F. Connelly | A | yes | | YES | Y.Y.Y | Rod Dixon | A,B | yes | | YES | Y.Y.Y | Siegfried Langenbach | A | yes | | YES | | Javier Sola | D | | | | | Kent Crispin | D,E | | | | | Kitakitamatsinopowaw (I'll see you (plural) again, in Siksika), Eric ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 09:43:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Rick H Wesson Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALLS -- THIS IS IT Jon, thanks for the effort! my votes are below. best regards, - -rick On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER ONE > > The initial rollout should include a range of top level domains, > from open TLDs to restricted TLDs with more limited scope. NO: initial should only contain generic, not chartered. > > > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER TWO NO: nice but with out directions on how to implement the principials they are useless. > > PROPOSED ROUGH CONSENSUS ITEM NUMBER THREE > NO: let the IETF do its work, once a technical solution exists we can work on developing policy. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 17:51:34 -0400 (EDT) From: "Ross Wm. Rader" Subject: [wg-c] TUCOWS.com Comments on IPC Sunrise Proposal 15 April, 2000 Michael Palage Chair, Working Group B/Registrars Constituency Secretariat Domain Name Supporting Organization Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Michael, TUCOWS.com Inc. is responding in the limited time available to your request that we comunicate our views concerning the latest proposals from the Intellectual Property Constituency, called "sunrise plus twenty." While we are aware that you are acting as best you can in limited circumstances of budget and time, TUCOWS must protest the inadequate consultation that has taken place in regard to these proposals, and must on grounds of substance reject them in their entirety. We find it increasingly anomalous that the secretary of the registrars association is acting to compromise the interests of IP holders with the interests of the vast mass of Internet users in this way. The essence of ICANN's problem is the disproportionate attention which is being given inside the working groups, and, increasingly outside, in private conferences, to the pretensions of the IP community to stall the process of domain name expansion, on grounds that we and our Internet users consider to be dubious and, in some cases, in outright error: error both as to policy as regards the future direction of the Internet, and more fundamentally, as to their power to hold up domain name expansion based on the monopoly of the NSI over the root server. You have received commentary from John Berryhill, which, in our view, devastates the position of the IPC that they are entitled to extra-legal privileges in the matter of establishing domain names for famous names, and lately, for all trade mark holders in all countries. The IPC's contentions that trade mark holders are owed a special set of privileges regarding domain names, different from and superior to those worked out in national legislatures, is not something that other users of the Internet need to accept. Moreover, it is unnecessary. The fastest way to eradicate the problem that the IPC pretends to solve is to have a rapid, large expansion of domain names. The IPC is threatened by this approach because it diminshes the value of what they are protecting, and the value fo the services they render. The issue is not, as they suppose, "confusion" in the marketplace, or the protection of consumers. It is the protection of the economic position of intellectual property lawyers. What we are actually observing in the saga of domain name expansion is a power-grab of major proportions over the architecture of the Internet, using ICANN not so much as a representative forum for IP interests as the embodimenet of IP lawyers' interests. This tendency is not good for the Net, for Internet users, for small businesses which need the increase of namespace, and ultimately it will lead, if unchecked by common sense and contrary interests, to the avoidance of the DNS and the downfall of ICANN. The policy that should be followed in relation to IP interests is this: no privilege shall be granted to any trade mark or famous name holder by ICANN that is not available under domestic trade mark law. We understand that this principle will need adjustment to accord with the global nature of top level domains, but by sticking to it ICANN will do better for the Internet, for millions of users, and even for the interests of IP owners, than a policy of restriction. TUCOWS has been supporting reasonable compromise between IP owners and domain name expansion for some time. On reflection, We have decided that we are not going to get domain name expansion in this way, and that we are in fact acceding to a takeover of the political processes of ICANN by a set of interests that oppose what the Internet stands for. We urge you to reconsider the nature of the compromises you may be making, and what you may consider to be realistic. To us at TUCOWS, compromise with the kinds of proposals we are seeing coming from the IPC will get us nowhere. Yours sincerely, Ross Wm. Rader Director, Assigned Names Division TUCOWS.com Inc. - -------------------------------------------------------------- Ross Wm. Rader http://www.domaindirect.com Director, Assigned Names Division http://www.opensrs.org TUCOWS.com Inc. http://www.domainwatch.com ross@tucows.com http://www.domainsurfer.com - -------------------------------------------------------------- t. (416) 531-2697 x 335 f. (416) 531-5584 - ----------------"Because-People-Need-Names"------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 17:05:24 -0600 From: katie@imt.net Subject: Re: [wg-c] TUCOWS.com Comments on IPC Sunrise Proposal 4/15/00 sa 4:58 pm mdt Bravo! Mr. Rader. Would you please post to the list, the text of John Berryhill's commentary. Katie Vestal ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 05:51 PM 4/15/00 -0400, Ross Wm Rader wrote: > >15 April, 2000 > >Michael Palage >Chair, Working Group B/Registrars Constituency Secretariat >Domain Name Supporting Organization >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > > >Michael, > >TUCOWS.com Inc. is responding in the limited time available to your >request that we comunicate our views concerning the latest proposals from >the Intellectual Property Constituency, called "sunrise plus twenty." > >While we are aware that you are acting as best you can in limited >circumstances of budget and time, TUCOWS must protest the inadequate >consultation that has taken place in regard to these proposals, and must >on grounds of substance reject them in their entirety. We find it >increasingly anomalous that the secretary of the registrars association is >acting to compromise the interests of IP holders with the interests of the >vast mass of Internet users in this way. > >The essence of ICANN's problem is the disproportionate attention which is >being given inside the working groups, and, increasingly outside, in >private conferences, to the pretensions of the IP community to stall the >process of domain name expansion, on grounds that we and our Internet >users consider to be dubious and, in some cases, in outright error: error >both as to policy as regards the future direction of the Internet, and >more fundamentally, as to their power to hold up domain name expansion >based on the monopoly of the NSI over the root server. > >You have received commentary from John Berryhill, which, in our view, >devastates the position of the IPC that they are entitled to extra-legal >privileges in the matter of establishing domain names for famous names, >and lately, for all trade mark holders in all countries. > >The IPC's contentions that trade mark holders are owed a special set of >privileges regarding domain names, different from and superior to those >worked out in national legislatures, is not something that other users of >the Internet need to accept. Moreover, it is unnecessary. The fastest way >to eradicate the problem that the IPC pretends to solve is to have a >rapid, large expansion of domain names. The IPC is threatened by this >approach because it diminshes the value of what they are protecting, and >the value fo the services they render. > >The issue is not, as they suppose, "confusion" in the marketplace, or >the protection of consumers. It is the protection of the economic >position of intellectual property lawyers. > >What we are actually observing in the saga of domain name expansion is a >power-grab of major proportions over the architecture of the Internet, >using ICANN not so much as a representative forum for IP interests as the >embodimenet of IP lawyers' interests. This tendency is not good for the >Net, for Internet users, for small businesses which need the increase of >namespace, and ultimately it will lead, if unchecked by common sense and >contrary interests, to the avoidance of the DNS and the downfall of ICANN. > >The policy that should be followed in relation to IP interests is this: >no privilege shall be granted to any trade mark or famous name holder by >ICANN that is not available under domestic trade mark law. We understand >that this principle will need adjustment to accord with the global nature >of top level domains, but by sticking to it ICANN will do better for the >Internet, for millions of users, and even for the interests of IP owners, >than a policy of restriction. > >TUCOWS has been supporting reasonable compromise between IP owners and >domain name expansion for some time. On reflection, We have decided that >we are not going to get domain name expansion in this way, and that we are >in fact acceding to a takeover of the political processes of ICANN by a >set of interests that oppose what the Internet stands for. We urge you to >reconsider the nature of the compromises you may be making, and what you >may consider to be realistic. To us at TUCOWS, compromise with the kinds >of proposals we are seeing coming from the IPC will get us nowhere. > >Yours sincerely, > >Ross Wm. Rader >Director, Assigned Names Division >TUCOWS.com Inc. > > > > > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------- >Ross Wm. Rader http://www.domaindirect.com >Director, Assigned Names Division http://www.opensrs.org >TUCOWS.com Inc. http://www.domainwatch.com >ross@tucows.com http://www.domainsurfer.com >-------------------------------------------------------------- >t. (416) 531-2697 x 335 f. (416) 531-5584 >----------------"Because-People-Need-Names"-------------------< ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 20:14:30 -0400 (EDT) From: "Ross Wm. Rader" Subject: Re: [wg-c] TUCOWS.com Comments on IPC Sunrise Proposal > > Bravo! Mr. Rader. Thank you. We feel very strongly that this proposal and any other extra-legal TM privilege be discarded so that ICANN can continue as a body of charged with the the technical management of the Internet's domain name system, the allocation of IP address space, the assignment of protocol parameters, and the management of the root server system. Creating "bottom up consensus based policy" is not the same thing as creating benefit for the few, at the expense of the many. > > Would you please post to the list, the text of John Berryhill's commentary. The full text can be found at: http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-b/Archives/msg00795.html Relevant bits... "...Point (1) - The Proposals Have No Basis In Technology Or Law..." "...Point (2) - Artificial Constriction of the Name Space by the IPC is Hurting Small Business..." "Conclusion...the mechanisms for restricting registrations according to various pre-emptive systems are flawed technically as they do not accord with RFC1591, and they are flawed legally as they do not accord with the remedial character of Law as we in the West have come to know it over a learning curve of hundreds of years. The IPC does not have the technical background to run the Internet, and WG-B does not have the legal sophistication to re-write basic trademark law. This is not how to run a computer network." Thanks, - -RWR - -------------------------------------------------------------- Ross Wm. Rader http://www.domaindirect.com Director, Assigned Names Division http://www.opensrs.org TUCOWS.com Inc. http://www.domainwatch.com ross@tucows.com http://www.domainsurfer.com - -------------------------------------------------------------- t. (416) 531-2697 x 335 f. (416) 531-5584 - ----------------"Because-People-Need-Names"------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 23:29:30 -0400 (EDT) From: James Love Subject: [wg-c] Time to comment on IPC sunrise proposal I sent this to WG-B earlier this evening. Jamie - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 22:47:10 -0400 (EDT) From: James Love To: wg-b@dnso.org Subject: Time to comment on IPC sunrise proposal Dear Michael Palage, I think you should provide additional time for comments on the IPC sunrise proposal. I thought we were discussing a "famous names" type approach for the sunrise proposal, something that was controversial, even though it would be limited in scope. Now, we have a proposal for a new right for all trademark owners, which is very different. Based upon a brief look, I have to express opposition. Before this is presented to the Names Council, you might ask for a vote to have record of how it fares in WG-B. (It would be interesting to break down the votes according to the interests of the WG members, so you could see how various groups react to the IPC proposal). CPT comment: By extending the sunrise first right of refusal to all trademarks, and to 20 variations of names, it appears as though ICANN will be shielding trademark owners for a wide range of common forms of criticisms and civil society organizing (aolsucks.com, ibmunion.com), plus, extending rights in a given line of commerce into all lines of commerce and activity -- a right that goes beyond current global legal traditions. I would note also that already some persons are claiming that a domain like boeing.union would be a commerical use, because unions represent the commercial interests of workers. The some could be said for bellatlantic.customers, if that TLD was used to organize Bell Atlantic customers in regulatory proceedings. This illustrates only a few of the problems with the IPC proposal, and the degree to which some would use trademark law to prevent workers, consumers or others to defend their interests in the global economy. Like most people with other interests than ICANN, I have a very difficult time keeping up with everything. But it seems to me that this was presented very late in the game, and without any warning. Correct me if I am wrong about this. However, if this is the case, you should provide additional time for comment. I would indicate also that I am not unsympathetic of the need for protections of trademarks, and among other proposals, have suggested that all the applicants for registry test bed make their own proposals to address the concerns of trademark owners, and that these different approaches be part of the test bed. Jamie Love ============================================= James Love, Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367 | http://www.cptech.org Washington, DC 20036 | love@cptech.org Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176 ============================================= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 12:38:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [wg-c] TUCOWS.com Comments on IPC Sunrise Proposal I agree with your comments and those of John Berryhill. Since this WG is dealing with new TLDs I suggest the following: No new TLD shall be allowed if that TLD gives any preference to any class unless that preference is mirrored in the laws of at least 2/3 of the world's nations. Since, as has been well indicated, the "sunrise" class of proposals amount to a class preference beyond anything found in the laws of any nation, any proposed TLD that adheres to such a preference would have to find its home elsewhere. --karl-- ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #88 *************************