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

[wg-b] Time to comment on IPC sunrise proposal

Dear Michael Palage,

I think you should provide additional time for comments on the IPC
sunrise proposal.  I thought we were discussing a "famous names" type
approach for the sunrise proposal, something that was controversial, even
though it would be limited in scope.  Now, we have a proposal for a new
right for all trademark owners, which is very different.

Based upon a brief look, I have to express opposition. Before this is
presented to the Names Council, you might ask for a vote to have record
of how it fares in WG-B.  (It would be interesting to break down the
votes according to the interests of the WG members, so you could see how
various groups react to the IPC proposal).  

CPT comment:

By extending the sunrise first right of refusal to all trademarks, and
to 20 variations of names, it appears as though ICANN will be shielding
trademark owners for a wide range of common forms of criticisms and
civil society organizing (aolsucks.com, ibmunion.com), plus, extending
rights in a given line of commerce into all lines of commerce and
activity -- a right that goes beyond current global legal traditions.

I would note also that already some persons are claiming that a domain
like boeing.union would be a commerical use, because unions represent
the commercial interests of workers.  The some could be said for
bellatlantic.customers, if that TLD was used to organize Bell Atlantic
customers in regulatory proceedings.  This illustrates only a few of the
problems with the IPC proposal, and the degree to which some would use
trademark law to prevent workers, consumers or others to defend their
interests in the global economy.  

Like most people with other interests than ICANN, I have a very
difficult time keeping up with everything.  But it seems to me that this
was presented very late in the game, and without any warning.  Correct
me if I am wrong about this.  However, if this is the case, you should
provide additional time for comment.

I would indicate also that I am not unsympathetic of the need for
protections of trademarks, and among other proposals, have suggested
that all the applicants for registry test bed make their own proposals
to address the concerns of trademark owners, and that these different
approaches be part of the test bed.  

 Jamie Love

James Love, Consumer Project on Technology    
P.O. Box 19367        | http://www.cptech.org 
Washington, DC 20036  | love@cptech.org       
Voice 202/387-8030    | Fax 202/234-5176