[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-b] Common Ground
Mr Hartman's comments would appear entirely apposite. It is a response to a
series of queries posted by Mr Sheppard of AIM in concert with your assistant,
Ms Kleiman, to wg-b, is it not? And one would assume that an entity with brand
interests such as Nabisco should be listened to with at least some respect.
Milton Mueller wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hartman, Steve" <HartmanS@Nabisco.com>
> > These principles appear more relevant to the issue of new gTLDs than the
> > protection of famous marks. For example, we can agree that whether
> > [famousmark].[tld] is (a) always, (b) never, or (c) sometimes (depending
> > the famous mark at issue), entitled to an exclusion from the domain space,
> > depends on what rule maximizes the communicative values of the Internet.
> > beyond that, how would these principles apply?
> I agree.
> It is commendable that you are attempting to find common ground, but you are
> doing so in the wrong forum, and it is a bit strange to see you attempting
> to start from scratch.
> WG-C has been developing principles for the introduction of new TLDs since
> July '99. It is the single most controversial and difficult topic ICANN
> faces, so progress has been slow.
> However, WG-C has developed a set of questions regarding the issues, and a
> set of position papers upon which extensive public comment was recieved.
> I agree with some of the principles and disagree with others. But I think it
> inappropriate to spend much time discussing them in this WG, which is
> devoted to famous marks. In general, your principles seem to imply that
> ICANN should develop a fixed categorization scheme for new TLDs. It also
> seems to imply that strict central regulation should be imposed on the
> registration within TLDs to ensure they registrations conform to the
> categorization scheme. I find it necessary to note that similar ideas have
> been advanced in WG-C by one or two people, but they have received very
> little support within the group, and there was virtually no support for
> those ideas in the public comments.
> I would encourage you to review the record of WG-C, its position papers and
> public comments, and to submit these comments to the WG on new TLDs if you
> care to pursue it.
> m i l t o n m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
> syracuse university http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/