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

RE: [wg-b] Voting Results and What We Do Next

Michael and other colleagues: 
I think at this point we need to have some drafted white papers on the
nature of the problems and some of the proposed mechanisms being suggested.
Then discussion, then we can go to polling again... but I recommend we have
the interim working effort, and volunteer to participate in drafting.

Best regards, Marilyn Cade

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:mpalage@infonetworks.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 1999 12:07 AM
To: wg-b@dnso.org
Subject: [wg-b] Voting Results and What We Do Next
Importance: High


Listed below are the results from the voting process. As most things
associated with ICANN, the results are not as simple as they should be.
There were concerns raised by some individuals on the list regarding voting
by multiple people within the same organization. Specially, Marilyn Cade &
Michele Farber from AT&T; Jim Bramson & Elizabeth Frazee from AOL, Maria
Equiron  & Teresa Sobreviela  from InterDomain and Victoria Carrington &
Jonathan Cohen from the law firm of Shapiro & Cohen. There was also was some
concern about Tod Cohen & Ted Shapiro from the MPAA. However, this issue
never materialized because Ted Shapiro did not vote. Either way the votes
are counted and there appears to be consensus on Option A. I will announce
these votes as final after individuals are able to very that I recorded
their votes properly. For anyone that would like the Excel spread sheet
please request it and I will forward it to you directly. (detailed results
listed below)

Now we must decide as a working group where we choose to go. I offer the
following suggestions. There are two areas that need to be addressed: (1)
what criteria/process will be used in defining famous marks and (2) how will
this process interact with the roll-out of new gTLDs. I believe these
questions are starting us down the right paths. However, I open to other

Next Potential Voting Question:

In defining what is a famous mark, should (1) objective standards be used,
i.e. registered in X number of countries, X in sales, only X number of
famous marks recognized (2) subjective standards, i.e. universal consumer
recognition, etc. or (3) a combination or both, i.e. a process where an
trademark owner would have to meet certain objective criteria before a panel
would make a subjective evaluation on whether a mark is famous or not.

Next Potential Voting Question:

In providing mechanisms to protect famous trademarks, what should the scope
of protection be: (1) just the trademark string itself "famousmark"; (2)
clearly defined variations of the trademark, i.e. "famousmark" or
"famous-mark"; or (3) the substring itself, i.e. "famousmarks",
"famousmark1", etc.

In building consensus we must do so one issue at a time, the reason I have
focused on these two questions is because we have already discussed these
issues in detail on the list previously.

In going forward I believe "safeguards" should be our primary concerns.
Safeguards for large multinational corporations, safeguards for small
businesses and individual domain name holders, safeguards for Internet users
and consumers, safeguards against the contemplated mechanisms from being
utilized by marks which are in fact not famous, etc. This vote was just the
first step in a long journey and we must continue to be sensitive to each
individuals' concerns.

Since we have now committed toward exploring projectionist mechanisms, I
suggest that prior to releasing our final report we conduct a final vote
similar to the one we just got done completing. Here is the basis of my
reasoning. Because we do not know the exact scope of the projectionist
mechanisms we may agree upon, one or two people expressed reservations about
voting for Option A.  The purpose of the final vote is NOT to overturn the
arduous task we are about to undertake but to provide a reaffirmation that
the benefits associated with these projectionist mechanisms out weight the
risks. Just to clarify, regardless of the outcome of the final vote that I
suggest, the final report will be submitted to the Names Counsel.  It will
just include a statement that after everything is said and done, the group
either continues to support this original consensus or its position has

That is all for now. I am sure that there are some people that will have
concerns about certain content/issues contained in this e-mail. If so,
please advise me and I will take it under advisement.

Good night,



Unedited Results (co-chair not included)
Eligible voters: 54
Votes cast: 41 (76%)
Option A: 30
Option B: 4
Option C: 0
Option D: 7
Option E: 0
Number needed for consensus: 28
RESULTS: Consensus for Option A

Edited Results (co-chairs not included)
Eligible voters: 51
Votes cast: 38 (75%)
Option A: 27
Option B: 4
Option C: 0
Option D: 7
Option E: 0
Number needed for consensus: 26
RESULTS: Consensus for Option A

Note: One vote for AT&T, AOL, & InterDomain were redacted to demonstrate
that consensus was achieved without any ballot stuffing.

Voting Profile:


ccTLD: 3
gTLD: 0
Registrars: 3
IP: 10
Commercial: 8
ISPs: 1
Non-Profit: 6
Not a constituency member: 13

Note: Some people indicated multiple constituencies


North America: 28
Asia Pacific: 4
Europe: 7
Latin America: 2
Africa: 0

Votes on Question #3

"Bill Barber" <bbarber@awd.com> Option A
"Mike Heltzer" <mheltzer@inta.org> Option A
"Kathy Kleiman" <kathrynkl@aol.com> Option D
"Tod Cohen" <tcohen@mpaa.org> Option A
"Alberto R. Berton Moreno Jr." <law@sbm.com.ar> Option A
"John Wood" <johnwood@kpmg.com> Did not vote
"Peter Weiss" <peter.weiss@chanelusa.com> Did not vote
"Davia Tamulioniene" <daiva@sc-uni.ktu.lt>Option A
"Khaw Yaw Tuan" <yewtuan@ncb.gov.sg> Option B
"Roeland Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com> Option D
"Ted Shapiro " <Ted_Shapiro@mpaa.org> Did not vote
"Jonathan Cohen" <jcohen@shapirocohen.com> Voted
"Younjung Park" <yjpark@nic.or.kr> Option A
"Mark Measday" <measday@josmarian.ch> Did not vote
"Eileen Kent" <eileenk@enteract.com> Option A
"Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu> Option D
"Michael Palage" <mpalage@infonetworks.com> Voted
"Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net> Option A
"Stafferd Guest" <sguest@cas.nu> Option B
"Toshi Tsubo" <tsubo@global-commons.co.jp> Did not vote
"Peter Gerrand" <peter.gerrand@melbourneit.com.au> Option A
"Peter Dengate-Thrush" <pdthrush@chambers.gen.nz>  Did not vote
"Tom Barret" <tom.barrett@netnames.com> Did not vote
"Marilyn Cade" <mcade@att.com> Option A
"Harald Tveit Alvestrand " <harald@alvestrand.no> Option B
"Jeffery J. Neuman" <NeumanJ@gtlaw.com> Option A
"Michele Farber" <mafarber@att.com> Option A
"Maria Equiron" <meguiron@interdomain.org> Option A
"Teresa Sobreviela" <mts@interdomain.org> Option A
"Rodrigo Marre" <rodrigo.marre@bakernet.com> Did not vote
"Hartmut Richard Glaser" <glaser@fapesp.br> Option A
"Sarah Deutsch" <SARAH.B.DEUTSCH@bellatlantic.com> Option A
"Jim Bramson" <jimbramson@aol.com> Option A
"Timothy Denton" <tmdenton@magma.ca> Option B
"kim kwangsu" <ks@mic.go.kr> Did not vote
"Rob Hall" <rob@echelon.ca> Did not vote
"Judith Oppenheimer" <joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com> Option D
"Elizabeth Frazee" <Elizfrazee@aol.com> Option A
"Kerry Owens" <OwensK@arentfox.com> Option A
"Pan-Jeong Lee" <pjlee@ibi.net> Did not vote
"Young-Ok Park" <okpark@ibi.net> Did not vote
"Otho B. Ross" <attyross@aol.com> Option A
"Mark C. Langston" <mark@bitshift.org> Option D
"Steve Hartman" <HartmanS@Nabisco.com> Option A
"Michael J Mlotkowski" <michael_j_mlotkowski@email.mobil.com> Option A
"Keith Gymer" <keith.gymer@btinternet.com> Option A
"Greg Phillips" <GDP@HPALAW.com> Option A
"Dennis Schaefer"<d3nnis@mciworld.com> Option D
"Dave Wilson" <wilsond1@sgbdc.com> Option A
"Victoria Carrington" <vcarrington@shapirocohen.com> Option A
"Andrea Morisi" <MorisiA@usa.redcross.org> Option A
"Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz> Option D
"Michelena Hallie" <Michelena.Hallie@viacom.com> Option A
"Doug Bush" <dougbush@cs.com> Option A
"Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> Option A
"Sue Leader " <exe.dir@isocnz.org.nz> Did not vote