[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-b] RE: [wg-c] ballot stuffing
Roeland, not a nefarious plot, but certainly political business-as-usual, based
on private cc's of emails among WG-C members that I've been privy to ...
"Roeland M.J. Meyer" wrote:
> 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?)
Judith Oppenheimer, 1 800 The Expert, 212 684-7210
Publisher of ICB Toll Free News: http://icbtollfree.com
Publisher of WhoSells800.com: http://whosells800.com
Moderator TOLLFREE-L: http://www.egroups.com/group/tollfree-l/info.html
President of ICB Consultancy: http://JudithOppenheimer.com: 800 #
Acquisition Management, Lost 800 # Retrieval, Litigation Support,
Regulatory Navigation, Correlating Trademark and Domain Name Issues.