Dear Robin Gross,
Thanks!
Then, why are you pointing at September version document of new gTLD
introduction? NCUC position document contains the recently updated
November version URL.
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/GNSO-PDP-Dec05-FR-14Nov06.pdf
Two version's languages are slightly different.
At least, I confirmed that 2.5.2.1 sentence had changed.
Then,is that Nov. version finally updated one?
I have discovered the potential danger of that document language in the
midst of GNSO IDN discussion. I fully agree to the idea of NCUC new
release on this topic, and I will inform that issue in my country. And I
think some additional problems regarding IDN TLD should be addressed
together.
best regards,
Chun
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, Robin Gross wrote:
> As for an update on the new gTLD policy development process, its a
> critical time.
>
> Some members of the task force and policy council will meet in LA next
> week to discuss the draft final report on the policy recommendations for
> the introduction of new generic top level domains (gTLDs).
> (Unfortunately I won't be able to attend the LA meetings because I was
> already ticketed to be in Bangalore on those dates). The new gTLD policy
> is one of several issues that will be discussed at the LA meetings.
>
> I am currently drafting some "alternative language" that can be
> introduced at this meeting to try to reform the existing draft
> recommendations that are so restrictive of speech and are modeled on an
> ancient trademark treaty.
>
> It is very possible that the GNSO Council will vote on the draft report
> (& the alternative language) at the late March Lisbon Board meeting. So
> we don't have a lot of time to garner support for reforming the
> recommendations. But the current draft is so repugnantly censorious and
> burdensome for ICANN that most are opposed to it - once they actually
> hear what it proposes. So we as a constituency have to do a lot of
> education and awareness raising on this issue. And I'm searching for
> more volunteers to work on this policy development process. The
> consequences of this policy are enormous for freedom of expression on
> the Internet, so I'm a little puzzled why more haven't volunteered to
> work on this issue yet. But now would be a most welcome time also.
>
> One idea is that the NCUC could issue a press release on the issue and
> we could each work in our own corners of the globe to publicize the
> issue with the press release and other efforts. What do others think? We
> also need to emphasize that the GAC principles are not nearly as
> restrictive as the draft recommendations, so arguments that "we have to
> do this because the GAC wants it," simply aren't true.
>
> Here is more background:
>
> This is the website for the new gTLD policy development issue at ICANN:
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/
>
> This is the draft policy that we want to change:
> *WORKING DOCUMENT: DRAFT GNSO Recommendation Summary - Introduction of
> New Generic Top-Level Domains
> <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/recom-summary-14sep06.htm>* (14
> September 2006)
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/recom-summary-14sep06.htm
>
> This is NCUC's position on the policy:
> http://www.ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCUC_Comments_on_New_gTLDs.pdf
>
> another NCUC paper on the policy:
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/ncuc-01feb06.pdf
>
> Thanks! I look forward to hearing what other NCUC'ers think we should
> do. And if anyone is willing to donate some energy to this issue in the
> coming months, please let me know.
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: robin, one question for new gTLD introduction
> Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:42:36 +0900
> From: Chun Eung Hwi <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
> To: [log in to unmask]
> CC: Mawaki Chango <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
> Dear Robin Gross,
> Hell, I have met you last year at WIPO development agenda meeting place,
> Geneva.
> Do you remember me? 8-)
> Although usually a silent observer in ncuc list, I want to ask you one
> question on new gTLD.
> Today, in GNSO IDN WG list, there was the following attached posting.
> As you know, Mike Rodenbaugh's argument can be justified in GNSO draft
> final report on new gTLD introduction. And I know you had already
> submitted very beautiful NCUC position statement on that document. I
> express my great thanks to you for that nice job here again.
> Then, now where is that document? What's the status of that draft
> document at present? What is the timeline for that? Is there any more
> chance to modify that document? As NCUC, do we have any other means to
> intervene with this issue except for just waiting for what will happen?
> If possible, please reply to NCUC list. Now, I cannot access to my
> subscribed account, and so using different email account.
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Mike Rodenbaugh* <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Date: 2007. 2. 8 ¿ÀÀü 11:37
> Subject: RE: [gnso-idn-wg] Comments on notes of 30 Jan
> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> There is no question, legally speaking, that trademark rights do give
> rights to domain strings. The ICANN community seems to have reached
> consensus as to that reality long ago, via adoption of sunrise
> provisions as to strings that are identical to trademarks. Regardless,
> UDRP and court decisions have held that passive registration of a
> domain, preventing use by the trademark owner, can amount to bad faith
> registration and trademark infringement.
>
> Furthermore, trademark owners can preclude the use of non-identical
> strings when such use is likely to confuse consumers. Thousands of UDRP
> decisions have found bad faith as to strings not identical to the
> trademark in question.
>
> Typographical vs. Visual Confusion:
>
> It is only the end user perception that is relevant to the trademark
> analysis, not the underlying punycode rendering. Yet, again there is no
> question that trademark rights not only trump use of marks that "appear"
> confusingly similar to the trademark, but also marks that "sound"
> confusingly similar (Yahoo!, Yahu, Yahoux, Yawho) and marks that have
> the same "meaning" (Yahoo! Mail and Yahoo! Correo (Spanish) are legally
> equivalent for purposes of TM analysis).
>
> I appreciate Mawaki forwarding the string about 'typographical'
> similarity and think that can be a useful distinction as opposed to
> overall 'confusing similarity' which must also include the other two
> types. I agree with Avri and others that it may be harder for a
> registry to make discretionary decisions about phonetic similarity and
> equivalence of 'meaning' than about typo similarity.
>
> However, businesses are concerned about all confusing similarities with
> respect to their trademarks, since the law protects against all
> confusing similarity in order to protect consumers. And the registry is
> profiting from trademark infringement in any case of confusing
> similarity. Therefore our policy work ought to consider all types, but
> I think these issues may be better left to the new WG formed to address
> IP protections in new TLDs.
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> Sr. Legal Director
> Yahoo! Inc.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> [mailto: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
> On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 1:18 PM
> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: [gnso-idn-wg] Comments on notes of 30 Jan
>
>
>
> hi,
>
> Re:
>
> > 5.2 Support for a country's rights to define strings for the
> > country name. Alternative view; to also accept a country's
> > responsibility/right to approve any gTLD strings featuring its
> > particular script, if unique for that country. Alternative view; to
> > also acknowledge a country's right to influence the definitions/
> > tables of its scripts/languages. Alternative view; to require a
> > country's support for a gTLD string in "its" script, in analogy
> > with the issue of geo-political names. Ancillary view: recognition
> > that countries' rights are limited to their respective jurisdictions.
>
>
> I am pretty sure I expressed the view that no such right existed and
> that ICANN defining any such right was inappropriate.
>
> a.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet | fax: (+82) 2-2649-2624
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81 | pcs: (+82) 19-259-2667
Seoul, 158-600, Korea | eMail: [log in to unmask]
------------------------------------------------------------
|
