[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[wg-b] Re: ICANN's Mandate
Martin and colleagues - whatever the motives of those making
the assertions you cite, they are erroneous.
The USG White Paper, which is ICANN's chartering policy document,
clearly puts trademark issues that intersect with the Domain Name
System on our agenda.
In the Board's very first policy action under the Bylaws - the
accreditation agreement adopted last March - there is specific
language with regard to the expectation that a dispute resolution
policy for accredited registrars in .com, .org and .net would
be adopted and that when it was, it would be included in the
registrar agreements with ICANN.
In Berlin in May, after considering comments and the WIPO report,
the Board adopted a policy statement in favor of a dispute resolution
policy and directed the staff to work on one.
In Santiago in August, after extensive public consideration of a
staff proposal on dispute resolution, and broad support for a revised
draft, the Board adopted a dispute resolution policy and directed
the staff to work out the details with a drafting committee, and
then post it for further public comment and final consideration by
the board. We are now in the closing days of the comment period on
the detailed language of the policy and the procedures, including
solicitation of community views on some details.
In case there is any lingering ambiguity about the above, let me
(a) the USG and many other stakeholders asked ICANN to work on
trademark and domain name policy issues.
(b) ICANN has considered aspects of these issues at each of its
quarterly board meetings and will undoubtedly devote
more time in the future to items such as famous names and gTLD
expansion, which have been referred to the DNSO (see Berlin
Board resolution) and whose analysis and recommendations will
be carefully considered by the Board.
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
- Mike Roberts
> Hi Esther and Mike:
> Quotes of yours were posted to the Working Group B (famous marks) list in
> support of a general argument against ICANN involving itself in the UDRP
> and other areas relating to trademark protection:
> "Our charter is essentially technical and limited to a very focused area."
> >......... Esther Dyson, Interim Chair, ICANN, October 4, 1999 (quote in
> >"ICANN has neither the authority nor the resources to be a consumer
> >agency, and in any event there are existing protections for abuses ... such
> >better business bureaus, trade commissions, etc in most of the countries in
> >which domain name activity is present."
> > ......... Mike Roberts, Interim President/CEO, ICANN, October 5, 1999
> A discussion is now on-going as to "what you meant."
> Could you please provide the context of your quote to the Working Group,
> but more importantly, briefly state your views as to ICANN's role regarding
> the UDRP and the protection of trademarks.
> Marty Schwimmer
> P.S. Nice dancing hamsters, Esther.
> @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @