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

[comments-wgb] ATTENTION: I Believe something is afoul here....Please Read...

I was reading the following email sent in to this forum (http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-wgb/Arc00/msg00023.html ) from INTA which is a Trademark Association....The ending of this email (VERBATIM) struck a chord : 

INTA appreciates this opportunity to provide comments to the Names Council
and the ICANN Board on the "WG-B Report" and we look forward to working with
our ICANN colleagues
towards achieving consensus on a final recommendation
which will minimize the use of new TLDs to infringe upon trademark rights. 

Mike Heltzer
INTA Government Relations Manager
  and Staff Liaison to the INTA Special Committee
  on the Internet"
After reading the above email (in it's entirety) something didn't sit right...If you have read the report on what WG-B is doing I suggest you do ( http://www.icann.com/dnso/wgb-report-17apr00.htm )....Anyways the opening of their report (below--VERBATIM) states that the make up of this board is mostly trademark attorneys/and or brand managers.....Now put 2 and 2 together (the above statements from INTA and the one below from the Chair of WG-B (Michael Palage) and what possible conclusion could you come up with....)  
"Working Group B was created in Berlin last year and tasked with addressing Chapter Four of the WIPO report. Since that time the group has met at each of the last three ICANN regional meetings. There are currently over 120 participants on the Working Group B mailing list. Although the majority of the participants are trademark attorneys and/or brand managers, the remaining participants are scattered among a diverse cross section of the other six DNSO constituencies"
I would strongly urge the Chair of this WG-B to seriously consider putting off any recommendation to ICANN until the make up of this board is a little more "balanced".....I know what your response will be in that we as people who do not agree with the "Sunrise Plus 20" proposal can write into this board and make comments, however the fact remains that the board members (made up most of trademark attorney's/brand manager's" will listen to their constinuency....which by your bylaws are supposed to do.....WHO COULD that be.  Come on DNSO....We as intelligent persons can get the picture.  It's not that I am for Trademark Infringement...Like I said earlier in one of my email (see below)...The "Sunrise Plus" proposal does make an attempt at this problem, but you will be suprised how little this will do....Again, TECHNOLOGY that is available is the key......
What I propose is that this board disband as it cannot possibly come to a "fair and equitable" course of action if the "Trademark" lobby and businesses are in the majority on this board.....Conducting a board with the deck stacked (in my opinion from the above evidence on this website) will only hurt the Trademark lobby and businesses (which I do agree need protection) as any recommendation to ICANN by WG-B in favor of the "Sunrise Proposal" will be seen as VERY partial and consequently open to possible sanctions later down the road (which will again hurt the constinuents your trying to protect)......
**Here are links to some of my comments (to be fair) that I have made so as to give my perspective...I believe in openess :
**Just a little background...I am just a private citizen....asking for an impartial jury (ICANN) to rule in a fair and equitable manner this summer....So far my side is sitting 0 to 1....WG-C board recommendation for 6 to 10 domains were reduced to "just a few".....