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

[wg-b] RE: [wg-c] ballot stuffing

Hello Dave,

Get a clue, these folks have been participating ... in WG-B. If you'd have
bothered to go over there you'd have seen the discussions yourself. Those of
us who do have a clue are in both WGs. BTW, since I voted "yes", I am not
partial to their position. So, don't hold that against me.

However, the position paper I presented covers both areas
(http://www.dnso.net/library/dnso-tld.mhsc-position.shtml) and I clearly
stated so, in my position submission for WG-B.

From the view of the registry operator, WG-C and WG-B are not seperable
issue-sets. One can not add new TLDs without running afoul of Famous Marks
issues. Unfortunately, those waters are extremely muddy. Ergo, the registry
should absent itself from that debate, defer those issues to the relevant
legal systems, and decline to adjudicate. This is the summation of MHSC
position, in WG-B. IOW, a position of absolute neutrality wrt trademarks.

Most of the WG-B participants feel otherwise. Now that they have finally
published their position submissions, they have time to see what else is
afoot. This isn't some nefarious plot. It is a natural result of related

If there is a problem, it is in the way the WGs are structured and
organized. But, to accuse WG-B members of ballot-stuffing is completely
over-the-top and shows your myopic ignorance.

The one question, and main issue, that I have wrt Famous Marks is; How is
the registry indemnified when it begins excluding registrations based on
some informal definition of what constitutes a "famous mark" (no formal
definition of "Famous Marks" is forthcoming, apparently)? This question was
never answered, nor has anyone, in WG-B, even attempted to answer it. That
part of the discussion did, however, generate a conversation, between Phil
Sbarbaro and myself (telephone), wherein I was informed that NSI would stop
filtering altogether, based on the same line of reasoning. It seems that
this question pretty much cuts to the heart of the issues. Since then WG-B
has been pretty quite because many of the participants were composing their

In conclusion Dave, it is not the result of some under-handed plot, although
in context of DNSO.ORG, one might be lead to believe such a thing <grin>. I
honestly don't believe that this is the case and the evidence seems to
support that view.

> Behalf Of Dave Crocker
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 9:05 AM

> For the first day of  wg-c (re-)balloting on the matter of
> 6-10 new gTLDs ,
> regular participants responded readily and overwhelmingly
> positively.  Notable is that the support is from the full
> range of regular
> participants, no matter how strongly they might have
> disagreed about other
> matters, in the past.
> Yesterday and today we see a large number of new names, many voting
> no.  Most appear to have affiliations that suggest an
> underlying concern
> about brand protection.  Those adding comments to their votes
> raise very
> old issues, thereby suggesting entirely entrenched positions and no
> willingness to compromise.  (If they are so concerned about
> the points they
> raise, why did they not participate in any of the many months
> of discussion?)