Karl and all,
I am in agreement with Karl on this as well. The fact that yet again we
have a group that is "SELECTED" by the ICANN (Initial?) Interim
Board is insufficient to meet the requirements of the White Paper
in this respect. The impact to the DN owners community now and in the
future is huge, and should be determined by the Stakeholder community
jointly by those participating presently at the very least.
Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 09:13:43 -0400
> > From: Andrew McLaughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Icann-Announce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: UPDATE: Uniform Dispute Resolution
>
> > At its Santiago meetings on August 25-26, the ICANN Board adopted a uniform
> > dispute resolution policy and directed ICANN's President to convene a small
> > drafting group to develop implementation language ...
>
> I'd certainly like to know why this matter, which is one squarely under
> the charter of the DNSO, not being done by the DNSO?
>
> This "drafting group" is not dealing with "mere details".
>
> Rather it is dealing with the most fundamental issue of all, that of
> defining when there is a conflict between a domain name and a trade or
> service mark.
>
> I object to this critical work being done under wraps, in closed session,
> and subject only ICANN's typical substandard level of post-definition
> review and overt disregard of inconvenient commentary.
>
> This matter is of such critical importance that it must be drafted in
> public, by all interested parties, with sentence-by-sentence discussion
> and debate by all concerned parties as it is constructed.
>
> Otherwise, this is a hijacked procedure of no legitimacy whatsover.
>
> --karl--
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
