[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[wg-b] RE: [registrars] Re: [council] suggested draft resolution for today's NC call
It might be pleasant to imagine that there was some kind of progress in WG-B
regarding famous names, now exploded by the IPC to include all trade marks
everywhere plus twenty variations, plus inumerable other privileges.
There was none. A last-minute proposal was launched through Michael Palage,
the chairman of WG-B, from the Inetellectual Property Constituency, on
which no consultation occurred formally on the list and on which
consultation, if it did occur, pertained to a previous variation that dealt
only with "famous names", as yet undefined. A casual reading of the WG-B
list this past two days would confirm this statement.
There is no evidence that the registrars (remember them?) agree with the
supposed proposal. They have not formally been consulted. There is no
"assent" from which other positions are dissenting. It is a mere nullity, a
proposal without support from any but the IP lawyers, and not even all of
Do not deceive yourselves. Trouble will flow from this powergrab as the
sparks fly upward.
Timothy Denton, BA, BCL
Telecom and Internet Law and Policy
37 Heney Street, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada, K1N 5V6
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
Behalf Of Paul M. Kane
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 12:43 PM
To: Chicoine, Caroline
Cc: 'Michael Schneider'; Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com; 'names council';
'Andrew McLaughlin'; 'Louis Touton'; Registrars List
Subject: [registrars] Re: [council] suggested draft resolution for
today's NC call
Having participated in this debate for the last 5 years, I am delighted this
issue is moving forward. May I suggest a proposal to address the concerns
raised so far to see if we can reach consensus.
"We would like to extend our deep appreciation to the participants who
diligently in both working groups B and C, and want to thank them for their
significant efforts in evaluating the issues that were referred to them.
The Names Council concludes that the report of Working Group C and related
comments indicate that there exists a consensus for the introduction of new
Level Domains in a careful and responsible manner.
The Names Council hereby proposes to recommend to the ICANN Board that it
establish a policy for the introduction of new TLDs in a measured and
responsible manner, giving due regard in the implementation of that policy
(a) to promote the orderly registration of names;
(b) to minimise the use of any new TLD to carry out infringements of
intellectual property rights (taking into consideration WG B's report);
(c) to ensure consumer confidence in the technical operation of the new TLD
the DNS as a whole.
To assist the Board in the task of introducing new TLDs, the Names Council
recommends the ICANN staff be instructed to invite expressions of interest
parties seeking to operate any new TLD registry, with an indication as to
they propose to ensure (a)-(c) above.
The Names Council would welcome the opportunity to review the criteria for
selecting new Registries once the scope of each expression of interest in a
(and proposed Registry) is known. [such that a small task force made up of
person from each Constituency, as well as a technical person from the ASO
PSO to study these alternatives during the month of May, post the report for
public comment in June, produce a final report with recommendations before
FN:Timothy M. Denton
ADR;WORK:;;37 Heney Street;Ottawa;Ontario;K1N 5V6;Canada
LABEL;WORK;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:37 Heney Street=0D=0AOttawa, Ontario K1N 5V6=0D=0ACanada
ADR;HOME:;;37 Heney Street;Ottawa;Ontario;K1N 5V6;Canada
LABEL;HOME;ENCODING=QUOTED-PRINTABLE:37 Heney Street=0D=0AOttawa, Ontario K1N 5V6=0D=0ACanada