The call for volunteers is really crucial. You may recall I've
closely involved in the new gTLD policy process till the Amsterdam
meeting last September. But unfortunately many other issues, groups
and processes have been emerging and I personally had become too
streched out to continuously sustain a significant participation in
all. Three Council members are not enough: WE NEED VOLUNTEERS!
Currently there are the following processes going on:
- New gTLD
- Existing gTLD contracts
- Its spin-off Rapporteur groups
- IDN
- Reserved names
- Rights of the Others
- Whois, still there
- Others I forget about, and others upcoming, etc. etc.
Robin, have you already submitted the new gTLD statement to Liz, and
calling for an additional action/contribution (e.g., as a way to
maintain pressure,) or is it that statement you're inviting input on?
In fact, I'd like to suggest one or two paras on another issue, to be
added hopefully to our statement. This concerns ways to ensure
opening the possibilities of market entry to operators from a wider
range of geographical origins and economic models.
Mawaki
--- Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> 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 Korea
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> pcs (+82) 19-259-2667
> fax (+82) 2-2649-2624
>
|
