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

[comments-gtlds] forwarded for Marilyn Cade (RE: [wg-c] comment deadline for WG-C interim report)

>From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
>To: "'Jonathan Weinberg'" <weinberg@mail.msen.com>, ga@dnso.org,
>Cc: "Politano,Frank L - LGA" <fpolitano@att.com>,
>        "Farber,Michele A - LGA"
>	 <mafarber@att.com>
>Subject: RE: [wg-c] comment deadline for WG-C interim report
>Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:00:37 -0500
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
>Jonathan, thank you for the clarification. I just walked into my office from
>an external trip, so will just be making the deadline!
>I offer the following comments:
>I believe that there remain serious challenges and potential problems to the
>introduction of new gTLDs that need to be resolved before any new gTLDs are
>introduced.  I also believe that there need to be established, and
>implemented criteria, which are in place before new gTLDs are introduced.
>This work has  not been done.  We have spent time in Working Group C on
>whether.  The step of how, and under what circumstances, and under what
>criteria remains to be done. 
>I don't agree that we could utilize a "trial" without implementing the full
>set of criteria,  since you certainly can't backtrack. 
>the purpose of the go slow approach ,and testing of the criteria is to
>provide a thorough experience with the introduction of any new gTLDs. 
>I remain unconvinced at this date that there has been a rigorous examination
>of whether the name space expansion of characters/letters will provide any
>benefit, and opportunity for more utilization. I have seen no discussion of
>that on the working group, and of course, realize that is "new" and probably
>just beginning to be implemented.  
>At this point, if new gTLDs are introduced, and the topic of famous marks is
>not addressed, then companies with well known and famous marks (I realize
>there is no "set" definition for this but ask that the readers understand
>the general point I am trying to  make here.)will have no choice but to
>register in the new 'g's, thus effectively limiting the expansion... That is
>not anyone's goal, so it is important to address the problem of how to
>protect famous marks in any new gTLDs.
>Once these criteria are developed and implemented, then a very small number
>(preferably one) could be introduced.  The registry function should remain a
>"sole source" or contracted function, with competition in the registrar
>function.  It is worthwhile to examine the value of maintaining a non profit
>status for the registry function; however, we understand that different
>models exist now with the ccTLDs and with NSI as a registry. However, there
>is no reason not to consider mandating "non profit" status for registries in
>the future; with limitations contractually to the existing gTLD registry via
>the ICANN accreditation process/procedures.
>I further believe that the interests and issues of the ccTLDs need to be
>understood and taken into account through dialogue with them before
>introduction of new gTLDs are undertaken. This is in no way a comment on any
>extension of authority  of ICANN in this area, but a suggestion that
>participation of the ccTLDs is useful in this dialogue. Some are
>participating; we suggest that further dialogue is very critical. 
>Confidence in the newly established UDRP process must be built; and that is
>"work in progress" with the filing of somewhere less than 10 cases.  
>I look forward to continuing to participate in working group c and urge that
>there begin linkage between working group b and c at some point soon. 
>Best Regards, Marilyn Cade
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:weinberg@mail.msen.com]
>Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 1:09 PM
>To: ga@dnso.org; wg-c@dnso.org
>Cc: chicoinc@PeperMartin.com
>Subject: [wg-c] comment deadline for WG-C interim report
>	The Names Council has clarified that comments on the Working Group C
>interim report will be deemed timely so long as they are submitted by close
>of business *today*, Monday, January 10, in the commenter's own time zone.
>Jonathan Weinberg
>co-chair, WG-C