>Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 1:42 PM >To: Wg-B; Chicoine, Caroline; Paul M. Kane >Cc: Registrars List; 'Louis Touton'; 'Andrew McLaughlin'; 'names >council'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Michael Schneider' >Subject: [wg-b] RE: [registrars] Re: [council] suggested draft >resolution for today's NC call > > >To all: > >It might be pleasant to imagine that there was some kind of progress in WG-B >regarding famous names, now exploded by the IPC to include all trade marks >everywhere plus twenty variations, plus inumerable other privileges. > >There was none. A last-minute proposal was launched through Michael Palage, >the chairman of WG-B, from the Inetellectual Property Constituency, on >which no consultation occurred formally on the list and on which >consultation, if it did occur, pertained to a previous variation that dealt >only with "famous names", as yet undefined. A casual reading of the WG-B >list this past two days would confirm this statement. > >There is no evidence that the registrars (remember them?) agree with the >supposed proposal. They have not formally been consulted. There is no >"assent" from which other positions are dissenting. It is a mere nullity, a >proposal without support from any but the IP lawyers, and not even all of >them. > >Do not deceive yourselves. Trouble will flow from this powergrab as the >sparks fly upward. > >Timothy Denton, BA, BCL >tmdenton.com >Telecom and Internet Law and Policy >37 Heney Street, Ottawa, Ontario, >Canada, K1N 5V6 >phone: 1-613-789-5397 >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >fax: 789-5398 >www.tmdenton.com > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On >Behalf Of Paul M. Kane >Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 12:43 PM >To: Chicoine, Caroline >Cc: 'Michael Schneider'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'names council'; >'Andrew McLaughlin'; 'Louis Touton'; Registrars List >Subject: [registrars] Re: [council] suggested draft resolution for >today's NC call > > >Having participated in this debate for the last 5 years, I am delighted this >issue is moving forward. May I suggest a proposal to address the concerns >raised so far to see if we can reach consensus. ><><><><> > >"We would like to extend our deep appreciation to the participants who >worked so >diligently in both working groups B and C, and want to thank them for their >significant efforts in evaluating the issues that were referred to them. > >The Names Council concludes that the report of Working Group C and related >comments indicate that there exists a consensus for the introduction of new >Top >Level Domains in a careful and responsible manner. > >The Names Council hereby proposes to recommend to the ICANN Board that it >establish a policy for the introduction of new TLDs in a measured and >responsible manner, giving due regard in the implementation of that policy >(a) to promote the orderly registration of names; >(b) to minimise the use of any new TLD to carry out infringements of >intellectual property rights (taking into consideration WG B's report); >(c) to ensure consumer confidence in the technical operation of the new TLD >and >the DNS as a whole. > >To assist the Board in the task of introducing new TLDs, the Names Council >recommends the ICANN staff be instructed to invite expressions of interest >from >parties seeking to operate any new TLD registry, with an indication as to >how >they propose to ensure (a)-(c) above. > >The Names Council would welcome the opportunity to review the criteria for >selecting new Registries once the scope of each expression of interest in a >TLD >(and proposed Registry) is known. [such that a small task force made up of >one >person from each Constituency, as well as a technical person from the ASO >and >PSO to study these alternatives during the month of May, post the report for >public comment in June, produce a final report with recommendations before >the >July meeting]." > ><><><><> > >Comments/thoughts??? > >Best regards > >Paul > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ph-1.613.473.1719 It's about travel on expense accounts to places with good beer. - BKR
