[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-c] voting on TLDs
Mallesons Stephen Jaques
Dave Crocker said:
>(Just to show that my concern for accuracy is not partisan...) The WIPO
>and INTA were on the IAHC. As I recall we also wrote them into the
>POC. For that matter, the recently adopted dispute policy is essentially
>identical with the mechanism put forward in the IAHC proposal and, as I
>recall, first suggested by the WIPO participant.
Without wishing to detract from the rest of Dave Crocker's message and
certainly not disagreeing with his point that WIPO were involved in the IAHC
proposals, the current UDRP has even closer parentage to the WIPO report,
The Management of Internet Names and Addresses: Intellectual Property
Issues, 30 April 1999 which WIPO claims arose out of an invitation in the US
government's White Paper. The recommendations in that report no doubt grew
out of the IAHC proposals, but also involved further development through an
extensive process of consultation and public comment..
Warwick A Rothnie
Mallesons Stephen Jaques Melbourne
Direct line (61 3) 9643 4254
Fax (61 3) 9643 5999
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2000 9:25:AM
To: Milton Mueller
Cc: Kevin J. Connolly; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs
At 12:04 PM 3/13/00 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
>From: "Kevin J. Connolly"
> > Nope. The #1 reason why the GTLD-MOU tanked was opposition from the
> > trademark community.
>Nope. The #1 reason was the US government's lack of...er....comfort at the
>role of the ITU. ICANN was created primarily to avoid having to put these
The ITU? You are kidding, right?
You seem to confuse the rhetoric of some noisy voices with legitimate fact.
Having been in the middle of the activities at that time and having gotten
assessments from a number of independent sources directly -- including two
meetings with Magaziner and many second-hand reports of regular
conversations with him -- I heard a consistent summary that a) a PORTION of
the trademark community -- namely a few very large multi-nationals, and b)
the U.S. Congress were the primary reasons Magaziner felt compelled to
re-invent IANA rather than allow it to develop under its own steam.
The ITU made good news copy for rabble-rousers but concerns about them
never had any substance. The factual aspects of ITU concerns were raised
by the US government and pursued through normal channels. For example the
one that got the most publicity resulted in an ITU member country review
committee -- of which the US was a part -- and it produced a unanimous
statement of support for the ITU's involvement.
Unanimous means that the US approved.
>The #2 reason was the refusal of the USG to allow a government contractor
>such as IANA to grab control of valuable taxpayer-funded assets without any
A well-spoken representation of a popular -- albeit false -- view,
unencumbered by any concern over the actual facts of the actual history.
IANA already had control and had been exercising it since the inception of
the DNS. The U.S. government had very little involvement in IANA
activities. By contrast IANA had the full support -- and the derived
authority -- of the Internet community. Magaziner's Green paper countered
a -- still unpublished -- US interagency task force report's
recommendations and, effectively, undermined IANA's existing authority.
>The trademark theory is an odd one, given the participation of WIPO and
>in the gTLD-MoU, and the fact that gTLD-MoU gave them more power and more
Nice of you to cite that. It is often forgotten. Indeed, they did
participate and in good faith.
On the other hand, a small number of specific, multi-national corporations
conducted their own, forceful lobbying campaign privately. They tended to
present a public facade of being supportive but were working quite hard at
undermining things. And they succeeded.
At 12:21 PM 3/13/00 -0500, Kevin J. Connolly wrote:
>How fascinating. Where, in the CORE-POC paradigm, did the
>trademark community have a seat at the table? Where, in that
>process, was the ability to prevent the growth of the TLD
>namespace forever by imposing operationally-impossible
Dave Crocker <email@example.com>
Brandenburg Consulting <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA