[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-b] Final Report
READ THE REPORT PEOPLE.
NO WHERE IN THE REPORT DID I SAY THE NCDNHC SUPPORTS THE SUNRISE.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of James
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 11:19 PM
To: Milton Mueller
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; Wg-B@Dnso. Org
Subject: Re: [wg-b] Final Report
I agree with Milton that it is quite unfair to suggest there is *any*
support for the IPC proposal in the NCDNHC. Jamie
On Mon, 15 May 2000, Milton Mueller wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael D. Palage" <email@example.com>
> > Listed below is the Final Report that I submitted to the Names Counsel.
> I am not sure why the past tense is being used here.
> Why not pass the report through the list for comment before submitting it?
> The report contains at least one inaccuracy that could have been easily
> corrected with the circulation of one draft version to the WG list.
> To wit:
> > The current Sunrise proposal being advanced by
> > the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) and a significant portion
> > the Registrar Constituency does not require the creation of such a list.
> > This position appears to coincide with the Non-Commercial Constituency
> > has vehemently opposed the creation of such a list.
> This is misleading. The preponderance of opinion in the non-commercial
> constituency is against BOTH a list AND sunrise plus anything. Your
> statement implies that the constituency supports sunrise. It most
> emphatically does not. If, as I suspect, this implication arises only from
> bad phrasing, it could be easily corrected.
> > (3) The protection afforded to trademark owners should depend upon the
> > of top-level domains that are added to the root.
> > Comments: This consensus item is based upon the recognition in the
> > Registrar and IPC proposals that this mechanism is probably not suitable
> > every new top-level domain, especial certain non-commercial domains.
> > However, this consensus item is conditioned on many tangential issues,
> > the scope of chartered gTLDs, the enforcement mechanism for charter,
> > Defining the procedures for classifying what constitutes a
> > top-level domain, is better left to another group. However, nothing in
> > consensus item should be construed as creating immunity from the UDRP or
> > other legal proceeding should a domain name registrant in a charted
> > top-level domain violate the charter or other legal enforceable rights.
> A typo:
> "...legally enforceable rights."
> > Conclusion
> > I regret to inform the Names Counsel that there does not appear to be
> > consensus among the Working Group B participants as to the type of
> > that should be incorporated into the rollout of new top-level domains.
> > However, I encourage the Names Counsel Representatives to review the
> > proposals contained in my April 17, 2000 formal report.
> It's not nice to use one's position as chair to privilege one,s own
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
P.O. Box 19367 | http://www.cptech.org
Washington, DC 20036 | firstname.lastname@example.org
Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176