Re: [wg-c] I/O Design Initiates Legal Proceedings against CORE

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Jul 20, 1999 at 12:07:34PM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> 
> 
> Javier SOLA wrote:
> 
> > The above statement is false. Kent has never stated that "the DNS
> > administrator *must* get directly involved in the resolution of trademark
> > disputes in second-level names". Quite the contrary, the registry operator
> > is just an entity delegated by ICANN, a database operator, and should not
> > be involved in any of this stuff, nor policy.
> 
> By the "DNS administrator" I meant ICANN. ICANN, not registries, is who
> administers the domain name system (DNS). And unfortunately, the
> IAHC/CORE/gTLD-MoU proposal, as well as the WIPO proposals, got the DNS
> administrator directly involved in dispute resolution.

An odd definition of "directly".  I grant you that both the IAHC and 
ICANN are directly involved in working on *policies*  concerning 
dispute resolution.  That is vastly different from being directly 
involved in dispute resolution, according to the way I understand 
things. 

If you mean to imply that the "DNS Administrator" should not be 
involved in dispute resolution *policy*, then there is nothing to 
talk about.  ICANN has a clear mandate to do so, and discussing that 
here is just a distraction.

But finally, if you mean that ICANN *should* get in dispute 
resolution policy at the TLD level, then I agree.  My feeling is 
that ICANN should have as a most basic DRP at the TLD level that 
avoidance of such disputes is a *top* priority.

There are two important caveats: 1) some disputes are unavoidable,
and must be anticipated; and 2) one must think in the long term.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain