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

RE: [wg-b] WG-B Deadline

Valid concerns. Let me offer you the following insight.

The registrars are not too concerned with the size of the list, within
reason, as long as it is used in connection with a sunrise right of first
refusal and NOT as part of a filtering mechanism. The registrars do not want
to have any say in the creation of the list because of potential liability
issues. They like the idea of WIPO creating the list because it is an
inter-governmental agency that cannot be sued. Therefore immunity starts
with the creation of the list and they are further insulated if ICANN
mandates it upon registration authorities.  However, the Registrars are
sensitive to the Non-commercial and free speech concerns and have
preliminarily backed excluding charter non-commercial top-level domains from
this sunrise program.  Therefore their concerns should be addressed. The
concerns of the small businesses should also be protected if WIPO uses
discretion in creating the list in a responsible manner, which there is no
reason to believe that they shouldn't.

I understand that this insight is less than ideal to several people on this
list, but at least it is an effort among certain constituencies to put aside
past differences and move toward a common ground. I will be the first to
admit that the final outcome of famous trademarks and new top-level domains
will be far from satisfactory for most if not all people. In fact, if the
job is done right no one will be happy, but it will be a solution that we
all can live with.

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage

-----Original Message-----
From:	owner-wg-b@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-b@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Mikki
Sent:	Friday, March 24, 2000 4:20 PM
To:	mpalage@infonetworks.com; wg-b@dnso.org
Subject:	Re: [wg-b] WG-B Deadline

My concerns are the same as always.  There is no place for an
unfettered, unlimited list of "famous marks" to be used for
exclusionary purposes across all gTLDs.  The current proposals have
no upper limit, are being chosen by those with severe bias, and there
is no mechanism for protecting free speech interests.