Richard J. Sexton wrote: > > > C. Review of the Working Group B -- Famous Trade-Marks > > > > Michael D.Palage, Working Co-Chair, was convened to join the > > teleconference and give a brief summary of ten months of WG-B work, > > July 1999 - May 2000, as well as outline the points of consensus and > > disagreement. The WG-B grew up very large, more than 120 participants, > > 50% from the IPC, 20% dispersed over Constituencies. The group agreed > > with 70% of yes that there should be safeguards on the trademark's > > protection. Most of participant agreed that a creation of a trademark's > > list would not be prudent at this time, but it does not preclude about > > the future. Whatever protection to the trademarks, it should be > > assorted to the nature of TLD. There should not be an exclusion of > > trademark's names across all TLDs. The Registrars were concerned by a > > speed of process, therefore to have a list. The Non-commercials were > > critical about this proposition. Some proposals collected by the WG-B > > could be explored more deeply in the future. > > > > Michael Palage was requested to provide recommendations on working > > procedures for the future, based on the WG-B experience (shall the WG > > be open to a newcomers over such a long time, facing the same questions > > asked over and over again, but also bringing a new ideas; how the > > listserv should be improved to prevent discussions' diversion on the > > public comments forum). The same request will be passed to Jonathan > > Weinberg, Working Co-Chair of the WG-C. Both written documents will be > > used by the WG-D. > > > > The discussion followed on mandates as given to the Co-Chairs and term > > of reference (whether it should be rather short or more precise). > > > > The draft of Resolution to the ICANN Board, as amended by the Names > > Council, was moved on by Roger Cochetti, and seconded by Kathryn > > Kleiman. The Statement was approved by an unanimous vote (16 YES, 2 > > absents Dennis Jennings and Patricio Poblete) > > > > o Resolution on Famous Trade-Marks and the operation of the Domain > > Name System > > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000519.NCftm-resolution.html > > o Summary of the WG-B work > > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000519.NCwgb-final.html > > > > 50% came from the IP constituency. Majority vote. And they decided > fmaous marks deserevr protection. What a shock. > > So, in effect, 60 poeple, all with major vested interest, passes > off as "community consensus" ? > > Wouldn't it be more honest to say "the trademark owners think > they deserve special protection" ? This is the modus operandi of ICANN. First they rig the committees so that there is on them a majority of persons favorable to certain pre-decided policies, then they present the decisions of those committees as a fairly voted consensus. As a consequence, none of ICANN's decisions is worthy of the slightest respect or legal validity. And their attempt to decide Internet policy for the world of Internet users without equitable representation by those users is purely and simply a conspiracy to restrain commerce, and a violation of the U.S. antitrust laws. ============================================================ Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org Tel. (718)846-7482 Fax: (603)754-8927 ============================================================
