[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-b] WG-B Report
Roeland Meyer wrote:
>Is this where we start the mutiny?
Does not parse. I suppose a mutiny means relinquishing your membership in
a Working Group, whose results are not likely to be considered if they
don't square with those who have predetermined view of what the outcomes
Or relinquishing your membership in the @Large, if you have chosen to give
the weight of your name to add credibility to ICANN's labyrinthian
What mutiny do you think would have any impact whatsoever on the course of
what I believe are predetermined outcomes?
The USG wants policies adopted whereby: "Domain name registrants would
agree, at the time of registration or renewal, to abide by processes
adopted by the new corporation that exclude, either pro-actively or
retroactively, certain famous trademarks from being used as domain names
(in one or more TLDs) except by
the designated trademark holder."
That's the directive of the White Paper. Unless DOC develops an
understanding that the Internet is a communication resource not solely a
commercial one (not likely since this hot potato was handed to the
Department of Commerce rather than the Federal Communications Commission),
that's the outcome we're gonna get, WGB and DNSO activities
If you want a mutiny, start by identifying all the clueless
Congresscritters who in their esteemed wisdom brought us the retroactive
and regrettable Trademark Cyberpiracy Act. You got a domain name and don't
"use" it. You must be a cybersquatter acting in bad faith. You got a
domain name that happens to be confusingly similar to a common law mark
used in principality for some purpose somethere in this world; you must be
a cybersquatter acting in bad faith. You got a domain name and in response
to a trademark owner's query, offer to sell it for a generouly inflated
sum; of course, you are a surely cybersquatter, acting in bad faith.
That sucking sound you hear is surely IP attorneys scrambling to figure out
how to get "famous" mark status for all their trademark clients.
BTW, I didn't write anything in the messages carried forward below and
attributed to me, although I surely have written about WGB's discussion and
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On
>> Behalf Of Ellen
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 10:26 AM
>> To: email@example.com; Milton Mueller
>> Subject: Re: [wg-b] WG-B Report
>> My understanding is that the Working Group B and C are now
>> concluded. The
>> WGB Report which presented biased support for an online
>> proposal that was
>> engineered off the public list has been turned over the the
>> NC and we all
>> have been thanked for playing in the WGB sandbox.
>> So to whom do we send our comments now? Specific email
>> addresses, please.
>> Milton Mueller wrote:
>> >In making comments on the WB-B report, I would urge all WG
>> members, and all
>> >members of the public, to remember an important fact. The
>> Names Council (NC)
>> >members do not care what the public comments say, nor do
>> they care what
>> >consensus items are arrived at in the Working Groups.
>> >Yesterday, Mr. Sheppard voted against the long-established
>> consensus item from
>> >WG-C calling for 6-10 new gTLDs. The WG report, as well as
>> public comments,
>> >overwhelmingly supported that many new gTLDs or more. Thus,
>> a WG can hold a
>> >vote on a consensus item three or four times, obtain 2/3 or
>> more votes
>> >consistently, and make carefully crafted compromises
>> designed to please as
>> >stakeholders as possible. This will not have any appreciable
>> effect on the
>> >outcome of a vote on the NC.
>> >Voting on the NC takes place on strict "party line" basis,
>> i.e., each NC
>> >votes for the particular interest of their constituency.
>> Thus, yesterday, NC
>> >had a voting item, "is there a consensus on 6-10 new gTLDs?"
>> The answer to
>> >question should have been obvious, because WG-C voted on it
>> several times and
>> >it was put up for public comments. However, the members did
>> not really vote on
>> >that question. They voted on the question: do I or the
>> special interests in my
>> >constituency want 6-10 new TLDs?
>> >One of the NC members even made a pointed joke questioning
>> how many members
>> >actually read the WG reports, much less the public comments.
>> >Keep this in mind as you prepare your comments.
>> >Philip Sheppard wrote:
>> >> At the Names Council meeting yesterday the status of the
>> WG B report
>> >> submitted was explained to the NC by both Kathy Kleiman
>> and myself. The
>> >> report will be posted for public comment.
>> >> In the meantime, the NC understands that the sunrise
>> proposal has not been
>> >> fully discussed by WG B and the NC urges rapid discussion
>> of this item with
>> >> a view to a report with an amended section on this item by
>> May 10. That
>> >> report will be reviewed by the NC at a meeting probably
>> taking place week
>> >> commencing May 15.
Ellen Rony // http://www.domainhandbook.com
Co-author *=" ____ / firstname.lastname@example.org
The Domain Name Handbook \ ) +1 415.435.5010
// \\ "Carpe canine"
The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.