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

RE: [wg-b] FORMAL BALLOT No. 1





> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-b@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-b@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Michael D. Palage
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 1999 2:25 AM
> To: wg-b@dnso.org
> Subject: [wg-b] FORMAL BALLOT No. 1
> Importance: High
>
>
> Voting is scheduled to end on Monday midnight EST.
> Please do _not_ edit the ballot beyond indicating your choice
> with an X in
> between the appropriate brackets "[]".
> QUESTION #1
> [Please identify the constituency group, if any, that you are
> representing]
> [] ccTLD Constituency
> [] gTLD Constituency
> [] Registrars Constituency
> [] Intellectual Property Constituency
> [] Commercial and Business Entities Constituency
> [] ISPs and Connectivity Providers
> [] Non-commercial Domain Name Holder Constituency
> [x] I do not represent any Domain Name Supporting Organization, I am
> participating in an individual capacity
>
> QUESTION #2
> [Please identify your region of citizenship (not residence)]
> [x] North America
> [] Asia/Australia/Pacific
> [] Europe
> [] Latin and S. America
> [] Latin America/Caribbean Islands
> [] Africa
>
> QUESTION #3
> [Please select ONE of the options listed below]
> [] Option A - Some type of mechanism, yet to be determined,
> is necessary in
> connection with famous trademarks and the operation of the Domain Name
> System.
> [] Option B - ICANN should not implement any mechanism for
> the protection of
> famous marks, because other mechanisms are adequate
> [] Option C - ICANN should not implement any mechanism for
> the protection of
> famous marks, because it exceeds the scope of ICANN's authority
> [x] Option D - Both Option B & C
> [] Option E - I choose to abstain from the voting process at this time
>
> COMMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH QUESTION #3:
> (Comments should be limited to 1 or 2 paragraphs)

With the present churn regarding trademark rulings and issues, it is
becoming ever more vital that the registry remove its business operation as
far as possible from these contentious issues. The registry should not
support any form of arbitration directly or otherwise embroil itself in that
political debate. It should require the presentation of a court order, from
a court of competent jurisdiction, prior to acting on any of these issues,
and otherwise remain strictly neutral. It is the root registryís prime
directive to maintain the stability of its operation, above all else. With
this in mind, the only defensible strategy is to follow current legal
dictates exactly, not try to make new law or support proponents of making
new law, such as WIPO. In short, a root registry should recuse itself from
being proactive in these legal issues. It must remain steadfastly neutral.

It is the registryís business to register names, not to adjudicate them. It
is the courtís business to adjudicate. If a court of competent jurisdiction
wants to impose some sort of filtering on the names, that the registry will
use, then it must do so explicitly, via court orders.

> END OF BALLOT
>
>