-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I think we would all be surprised to see the ICANN Board take action
in Bonn, since we will all be in Berlin waiting for them.
Based on actions we have seen to date, I believe we must be ready for
ICANN to make decisions on issues in Berlin REGARDLESS of the quantity
or quality of responses to their comment process. I still hold out
hope (I hope that I am not the fool).
Still,
"Fool me once...shame on you. Fool me twice? Shame on me!"
Gene Marsh
interim secretary, TLDA
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 1999 1:38 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [IFWP] Re: A Commentary on WIPO's final report on
> domain names
>
>
>
> Michael,
>
> > As the Final Report contains a wealth of material that is new,
or
> > substantially different from the Interim Report, including the
> > critical Annexes, further review and public comment is likely to
be
> > essential before ICANN takes action.
> >
> > [Please feel free to repost as appropriate until May 27, 1999.]
>
> I am pleased to see your comments here, but I have to object to
> your final lines. The bracketed deadline suggests that you accept
> the likelihood that ICANN will take action on this in Bonn, and that
> therefore public review and comment must try to fit that window of
> opportunity.
>
> I should say the priorities are just the opposite: ICANN should not
> take action *until* such public review and comment have been
> developed. If the public sees no pressing need for adoption of such
> extra-legal quick fixes, what mandate does ICANN have to do so?
>
> Yesterday the CRTC found that Canadians felt the Net needed no
> regulation, and therefore refrained from regulating it; I recommend
> that model of governance to the Interim Board.
>
>
> Beyond that, what do you see as a plausible way out of the 'abusive
> registration' corner? Would some sort of 'omsbudsman' panel
> serve the purpose? The WIPO report may be a good faith effort, but
> if all it amounts to is 'we'll know when we see one,' it hardly
> qualifies as intellectual property itself.
>
> Cheers,
> kerry
>
>
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
iQA/AwUBN0IbFXKYiraY8fZCEQInwQCg5URG7EvuDy+5uYOWJPPVd65lAvsAnjz7
kfULzMUsyH2OXzD5hsYeFPQz
=MDjW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
